Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Sandwich Port and Haven Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state the present strength of officers in the Indian Medical Service; how many of these are of European birth; and how many recruits, European and Indian, respectively, have been obtained for permanent service during the past 12 months, and how many for short service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The figures at the present time, as nearly as I can ascertain them, are: Permanent officers, 532 British, 142 Indians; temporary officers, 148 Indians. In the last 12 months 14 British officers have been appointed to permanent commissions, with the option of retiring with gratuities after five years' service. I am not aware how many Indians have been appointed in India to temporary commissions during that period, but shall be glad to enquire if the hon. and gallant Member so desires. A number of Indians, not exceeding 10, have recently been or are about to be appointed to permanent commissions.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ENGINEERS).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the complaints by ex-covenant engineers, Public Works, Department, regarding the manner in which they have been placed on the permanent cadre as affecting their pay, promotion, and pension; whether the placing of these officers on the cadre has boon in accordance with any rule or with their qualifications and the recommendations of the local governments under which they served; whether it was intended that these officers, who were recruited at an age above the normal, should be excluded from the concessions extended by Article 404A of the Civil
Service Regulations to officers in other services similarly recruited; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: The engineers referred to were originally engaged for temporary service only. They were ultimately offered and accepted appointments on the permanent cadre, not in accordance with any rule, but as a special concession and on special conditions which, having regard to all the circumstances, appeared reasonable in each individual case. Some of them have in the past submitted memorials to the Secretary of State praying for improvements in their conditions of service, but these have, after full consideration, been rejected. My Noble Friend sees no ground for taking any action in the matter.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the Noble Lord be prepared to consider the case further if I send him a statement on it?

Earl WINTERTON: Of course, I shall be prepared to consider any statement the hon. Gentleman sends me, but I cannot give him any promise that the policy will be altered.

AIR FORCE.

Mr. LANSBURY: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state the reasons which have led the military authorities in India to come to the decision to create six additional air squadrons in that country, entailing a large increase in military expenditure to be paid for by the people of India; whether this decision was taken after consultation with the Indian Legislative Assembly; and whether Indians are excluded from serving in the Air Force in India?

Earl WINTERTON: I know of no such decision having been arrived at by the military authorities in India. Indian civilian subordinates are employed in the Air Force in India.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Mr. LANSBURY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that military expenditure in India amounts to Rs. 60 crores as against an expenditure of about Rs. 29 crores in 1913; that the Inchcape Committee of 1922 recommended a maximum expendi-
ture of Rs. 50 crores and that the Meston Committee in 1919 recommended an expenditure of Rs. 42 crores; and whether, in view of the fact that there is dissatisfaction in India concerning military expenditure, he will take the necessary steps for accelerating the Indianisation of the Army in India in order that these expenses may be reduced?

Earl WINTERTON: The Budget Estimate for Indian military expenditure for 1925–26 is just under Rs. 57 crores and shows a reduction of 30 per cent. in the last four years. This reduction fulfils the anticipation expressed by the Inchcape Committee that their recommendations would enable estimates to be reduced to 57 crores in the years subsequent to 1923–24. They were also of opinion that if a further fall of prices took place it might be possible after a few years to reduce the military expenditure to 50 crores, an opinion to which the Commander-in-Chief could not subscribe. I am in doubt what the hon. Member means by the Meston Committee. Indianisation is necessarily governed by considerations of efficiency and security.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are any steps being taken to carry out the Indianisation of the Army?

Earl WINTERTON: The steps which I have mentioned on several occasions in Debate have been taken in the past. If the hon. Gentleman wants specific information, he had better put a question on the Paper.

COAL MIXES.

Mr. PALING: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many fatal accidents occurred in coal mines in India from March, 1923, to March, 1924; how many of those killed were men and how many women; and what was the total amount of compensation paid?

Earl WINTERTON: The number of fatal accidents in 1923 was about 330 The figure for the precise period mentioned by the hon. Member is not available, nor is any information available regarding the second and third parts of the question.

Mr. PALING: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether parents employed underground in coal mines in India are permitted to take their
children down into the mine with them and to remain there until the parents cease work?

Earl WINTERTON: Since the 1st July, 1924, it has been illegal to allow a child to be present in any part of a mine which is below ground.

Mr. PALING: 10.
asked the Under Secretary of State for India what are the wages paid per day to men and women employed underground in the coal mines in India?

Earl WINTERTON: The wages vary in the different coalfields, and complete figures for India are not available. There is some information on page 212 of "Prices and Wages in India, 1923," and on page 3 of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Mines in India for 1923. A copy of each of these publications is being sent to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (MINING ROYALTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Secretary of States for the Colonies whether the' Niger Company receives a proportion of the royalties payable to the Nigerian Government on all the tin mined in Nigeria, and, if so, what proportion; whether it receives a proportion of all rents paid to the Government in respect of all mining leases, rights, and licences in Nigeria, and, if so, in what proportion; and what sum was paid to the Niger Company in 1923 and 1924, respectively, under these headings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): ; As the hon. and gallant Member will see, if he will refer to page 4 of C. 9372, half the royalties levied on all minerals exported from Nigeria, which have been won in that part of the Northern Provinces which is bounded on the west by the main stream of the Niger, and on the east by a line from Yola to Zinder, is payable to the Niger Company or its assigns for a period of 99 years from the revocation of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company. The term "royalties" is held to include the fees charged for prospecting licences and mining leases. The sum paid over to the Niger Company in 1922–23 was £18,543, and in the six months ending September, 1923. £20,133. I have not the figures for 1924.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Colonial Office in view the revision of this arrangement, especially in the case of a greatly increased output of minerals in this area?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As this would involve a revocation of the Agreement, I do not see how it would be possible to reopen the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (CAPRIVI ZIPFEL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the territory known as Caprivi Zipfel is under the administration of the Colonial Office or the South African Government, or under a mandate from the League of Nations; and what authority exists for the administration of this territory other than by means of Articles 22 and 119 of the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Caprivi Zipfel is part of the territory of South-West Africa the mandate for which is exercised by the Union Government. The Governor-General of the Union has by Proclamation issued in virtue of the powers vested in him by the Union Treaty of Peace and South-West Africa Mandate Act, 1919, appointed the High Commissioner for South Africa to be Administrator of the Caprivi Zipfel and delegated to him full authority for that purpose; and the area is at present administered as if it were a portion of the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUBALAND.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the disturbance in Jubaland between the Mohamed Zubeir and the Herti Somalis will interfere with the carrying out of arrangements locally in connection with the handing over of territory to Italy in accordance with the Treaty?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The acting Governor of Kenya has reported that the disturbance in Jubaland is at present confined to a small area remote from the proposed new frontier with Italian Somaliland, and that it should not affect the arrangements for carrying out the cession to Italy.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

DAMASCUS-BAGDAD ROUTE (MURDER).

Captain EDEN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the murder of a lady passenger on the desert route from Damascus to Bagdad; and whether he can give any information as to the outcome of the steps taken to bring the murderers to justice?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that, on learning of the attack on the desert convoy, prompt and energetic measures were taken by the Iraq authorities to bring the culprits to justice. These measures are being vigorously pursued. Aeroplanes, armoured cars and camelry are co-operating with the civil authorities, and several arrests have been made.

EVACUATION.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government adhere to the pledge of Mr Bonar Law's Government regarding the evacuation of Iraq?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to the policy embodied in the Protocol to the Iraq Treaty (which formed the subject of a statement in the House of Commons on 3rd May, 1923) the ratification of that instrument on 19th December last would appear to supply the answer.

Major CRAWFURD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to state approximately when the evacuation of Iraq will take place?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is with the intention of examining this among other questions that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Colonies and for Air have just left for Bagdad. I should prefer to make no general statement in their absence.

Captain W. BENN: Are we not bound by Treaty to evacuate on a certain date?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly; the Treaty will be observed.

OCCUPATION (COST).

Mr. HARRIS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any proportion of the cost of the occupation of Iraq is borne by the oil companies interested therein or whether the whole cost is borne by the British Treasury?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The whole cost of the Imperial Garrison maintained in Iraq is borne by the British Treasury.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not possible to raise some revenue by rates or taxes or in some other form, from these oil companies which enjoy the protection of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Obviously, anything payable by these oil companies would be payable to the Iraq Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that to say that these oil companies pay some royalties direct to the Iraq Government, and that the British taxpayer, who maintains that country, is to have no relief at all?

Mr. LANSBURY: Why should not the Iraq Government defend the oil exploiters?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Iraq Government are doing an increasing amount to provide for their own defence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question? Are we not to get any benefit for the relief of our taxpayers?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that very shortly the prosperity of Iraq will develop so much that there will be an increasing local revenue, and, consequently, there will be a less charge on the British taxpayer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we discover whether the agreement with these oil companies involves the payment of any royalties to the Iraq Government or not?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I must have notice of that question.

Captain EDEN: Is it not a fact that there is not any oil company operating in Iraq?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that at the present moment no oil company is operating.

Major CRAWFURD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what has been the cost to the British Treasury of the occupation of Iraq for the past 12 months?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I presume that the hon. Member's question is intended to refer to the current financial year. As that year has not yet closed I cannot give figures of actual cost. As may be seen from Class V, Vote 4, of the Civil Service Estimates for 1924–25, the total cost was estimated at £4,711,500. I understand that it is probable that the actual cost will prove to be less than the estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (SUGAR PRODUCTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the increase in cane-sugar production on the Waterloo Estates in Trinidad under a system of peasant proprietorship over the previous production under a system of indentured labour?

The following STATEMENT of the Sugar-Crop returns for the Waterloo Estates is taken from figures published by the Agricultural Society, Trinidad,


Year.
Total Sugar made.
Sugar made from Estate Canes.
Estate Canes ground.
Canes purchased.
Number of Farmers.


East Indian.
West Indian.






Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.




1914
…
…
…
5,413
4,993
50,965
4,288
77
103


1924
…
…
…
7,268
4,001
40,034
35,953
1,048
942

Corresponding figures for all the Estates in the Colony for the same years are:—


Year.
Total Sugar made.
Sugar made from Estates.
Estate Canes ground.
Canes purchased.
Number of Farmers.


East Indian.
West Indian.






Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.




1914
…
…
…
55,488
35,920
409,797
201,899
7,450
5,253


1924
…
…
…
52,045
30,862
324,361
237,298
9,952
7,116

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (UNITED KINGDOM PUBLIC DEBT).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures published by the Agricultural Society of Trinidad showing the production of canes on the Waterloo Estate and local peasant cultivators for the years 1914 and 1924 respectively, together with corresponding figures for the whole colony. More than half the supply of the Waterloo estate is still from plantation production, and in any case it is inaccurate to describe the labour employed on that estate as all indentured. The total production of canes in Trinidad in 1924 was slightly less than that in 1914.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be right to say that there has been an increase of production since peasant proprietorship was introduced?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; not the total.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has there been an increase of production from the peasant proprietors?

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: Certainly. There has been a very considerable increase in the number of peasant proprietors.

Following are the figures promised:

what progress has been made under Article 5 of the articles of agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland in determining the share of the
liability of the Irish Free State for the public debt of the United Kingdom and for the payment of War pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull on 19th March.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Would my right hon. Friend explain to the House why the Government feel justified in collecting so many millions from Ulster and not insisting upon the liability of Southern Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (COTTON TRANSPORT).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received details of the delays taking place in the carriage of cotton on the Uganda Railway from the interior to the coast under which cargo is taking six to eight weeks on the journey against two to three weeks in previous years; and whether he has received any Report from the Governor of Kenya in the matter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have received representations on the subject and although no report, so far as this year's crop is concerned, has been received yet from the local Governments I hope that the difficulty, which is largely one of labour, may be removed. Complaints of delay recur every year and will do so until the new railway into Uganda is completed, but I understand that much of the time taken to get the cotton to the coast frequently passes before it is delivered to the railway which, to that extent, is not responsible for the delay. There is undoubted congestion at the port of Jinja in Uganda and at Mombasa.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that there is congestion on the railway itself, apart from any other cause of delay; and is the delay not quite exceptional?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no evidence that it is on the railway, but I gather the delivery of trucks has been considerably delayed in the last few
weeks. Matters are not serious on the railway; it is the ports that cause the delay.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: When will the new railway be completed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The railway has only just been begun. We hope it will be completed at the end of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTIGUA (OLD BUILDINGS).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to secure the preservation of the old dockyard buildings at English Harbour, Antigua, where Nelson refitted his ships in 1805, and also the tomb of Ralph Payne, Lord Lavington, a former governor of the island?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that funds are not at present available in the colony to preserve the interesting dockyard buildings which were built to suit naval requirements, and I understand that the Admiralty are unable to allocate any sum for the upkeep of an establishment which is no longer required by the Royal Navy. I have no information as to the condition of the tomb of Lord Lavington which appears to be situated on private land.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE LABOUR.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the average wages at present paid for adult male plantation labour in Kenya, distinguishing between raw boys, experienced boys, and head men?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not got the information necessary to give a categorical answer to this question. Rates of wages vary from district to district and in connection with different crops. Such figures as I was able to obtain in East Africa will be published in the East Africa Commission's Report.

Mr. SNELL: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Acting Governor of Kenya at Nairobi, with regard to the question of
forcing the natives to work on the land of the white settlers; and will he state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to this question?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen a report in the "Times" of 20th March. It gives what must be a much compressed account of the speech. The policy of the Government in this matter is still that laid down in paragraph 3 (ii) of the despatch sent to the Acting Governor of Kenya on the 5th of September, 1921, published as Cmd. 1509.

Mr. SNELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake that no alteration will be made in the Order before the matter is discussed in this House?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the Acting Governor of Kenya been communicated with in regard to this extraordinary utterance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that there has been an extraordinary utterance, and in view of the extraordinary misreporting to which I was subjected in Kenya, until I get from the Acting Governor the actual account of his speech, I shall not pay any further attention to it?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman taking any steps to get from the Acting Governor the actual report of that speech?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh, yes; we shall certainly get a full account.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (ANNUAL ALLOWANCE).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state why the Government of the Straits Settlements makes an annual allowance to the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren of the late Sultan Ali; when the arrangement was made; and for how many generations such annual allowance is likely to be payable?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The history of this matter is as follows. In or about the year 1819 certain land was set apart by the East India Company to make a provison for the family of Sultan Hussain
who ceded Singapore to the Company and who was the father of Sultan Ali. Many years later that provision was held by the Supreme Court of the Colony to have failed, and the land was held to have become Crown Land. It was decided that a sum roughly equal to the annual value of the land should be divided among Sultan Hussain's family, and effect was given to the decision by the Ordinance No. XIII of 1904, now known as Ordinance No. 187 of the Straits Settlements. The payment provided for amounts to 750 dollars per annum, with further provision for an increase if the net annual revenue from the land should exceed that sum. Payments will no doubt continue to be made at the discretion of the Colonial Government so long as there are persons eligible to receive them under the Ordinance.

Mr. WILSON: Seeing that there are four great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren, and the number is apparently increasing by arithmetical progression, do the Government intend that the same grant shall be distributed to each, or will it be reduced as the families increase?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The total amount available for distribution depends on the revenue from the particular land which has been set apart.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does the hon. Gentleman take into account the increased cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL OFFICE (DESIGNATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a change in the designation of his Department is under consideration?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The matter is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the question by the hon. Member for Frome (Captain G. Pete) on 19th February.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Will the Rouse have an opportunity of discussing any change before the change is made?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (WHIPPING).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that powers have been conferred on administrative officers in Tanganyika mandated territory to inflict up to 10 strokes of the whip for the contravention of any order or direction by the official himself, that this matter was discussed at the sitting of the Permanent Mandates Commission held at Geneva, on 1st July last, and that Sir Frederick Lugard characterised these powers as unusual, whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to make it clear that no such whipping should take place without charge and sentence before a competent Court?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The matter discussed by the Permanent Mandates Commission was the Native Authority Ordinance which, among other things, provides that certain punishments, including a maximum of 10 strokes, may be inflicted by a competent Court upon conviction for refusal to obey any regulation, order or direction lawfully made under the Ordinance. The present circumstances of the territory make it inevitable that in some cases the Court can only be that held by the administrative officer in his capacity as magistrate, but he is bound in every such case to follow proper judicial procedure in trying the accused. From my personal knowledge of the character of administrative officers in the territory, I can assure the hon. Member that the powers entrusted to them are not abused.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIRS, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. BURMAN: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Treasury has at any time paid any sum of money to cover any loss incurred by the authorities responsible for the organisation and administration of the British Industries Fairs held at Birmingham in the years 1920 to 1925, inclusive?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir, the Treasury has never paid any money in respect of the British Industries Fairs held at Birmingham.

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONSULAR FACILITIES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Department what are the facilities afforded by consular officials to our aircraft manufacturers to encourage trading in foreign countries; and how they compare with those afforded by the representatives of France and the United States?

Mr. SAMUEL: Commercial diplomatic and consular officers are always ready to give assistance to aircraft manufacturers developing their trade with foreign countries. Instructions to this end have frequently been issued by my Department in consultation with the Air Ministry. All information received is passed on to firms interested. I believe that the help thus afforded by our official commercial representatives compares favourably with that rendered by the representatives of other countries.

CUBA (INVOICE DECLARATIONS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 37.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that it is now necessary to present a declaration sworn before a notary public before a commercial invoice can be accepted at a Cuban consulate; and whether, seeing the inconvenience and expense caused to exporters, he will make representations to the Government of Cuba with a view to their accepting a declaration certified by a chamber of commerce?

Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn, and I am glad to report, that the Cuban Government have suspended indefinitely the requirement to which he refers in order that the matter may be reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 38.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made between his Department and the Board of the British Empire Exhibition with regard to the control of that exhibition?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The responsibility for the general administration of the exhibition must, in my opinion, continue to rest with the exhibition
authorities, but my Department keeps in close communication with them. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, a Financial Controller, who has been approved by the Treasury, has also recently been appointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. HURD: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, following upon the visit of his scientific advisers to North America, he proposes to adopt in this country such administrative measures for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis as have proved successful in the United States and Canada?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): Sir Daniel Hall's recent visit to the United States was not made for the purpose of studying American methods for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis. The measures adopted there are well known to my advisers, but, as I have already explained, the Government propose to proceed in the first instance with a measure on the basis of the Tuberculosis Order of 1914.

Mr. HURD: In view of the reports of the remarkable success of some of these measures, in Canada, for instance, would it not be desirable to ask for a report from the Governor-General for the information of British agriculture?

Mr. WOOD: I should most gladly do so if we had not already got the information—as I think we have. I will inquire into that matter.

WAGES BOARDS COMMITTEES (DECISIONS).

Captain CAZALET: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what measures are taken by his Department to make known to farm labourers the decisions of the wages boards committees; and whether notification of their decisions is available at all rural post offices?

Mr. WOOD: The Orders made by the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Wages Committees are advertised in newspapers circulating in the areas concerned and copies are supplied to the workers' organisations, in addition to
which posters giving the principal details are displayed at post offices (including rural sub-offices), police stations and Employment Exchanges.

WHEAT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated world production of wheat during the present cereal year and the estimated world demand for wheat during the same period?

Mr. WOOD: The total world's production of wheat in the cereal year 1924–25 is estimated by the International Institute of Agriculture at 1,648 million cwts. The estimated requirements are approximately the same. The above figures exclude the production in Russia and China, and in certain other countries which are of comparatively minor importance.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do the figures exclude the consumption of wheat in Russia as well as excluding its production in Russia?

Mr. WOOD: I am not sure about that.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture where it is proposed to build the isolated experimental station at which the official test of Dr. John Shaw's remedy for and prevention of foot-and-mouth disease is to be made; if the building has been started; from whom the doses with which the test is to be made are being obtained; and whether he has decided that Dr. John Shaw shall be present and carry out the test when it is made?

Mr. WOOD: It is not proposed to build a new experimental station for the purpose of testing Dr. Shaw's remedy. The premises at Pirbright formerly used by the Ministry as a cattle-testing station, which are being adapted for use by the Scientific Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, will be utilised for the purpose. No doses of the remedy have yet been obtained, but I presume that Dr. Shaw will be prepared to supply them when required. It is not legally possible for Dr. Shaw personally to carry out the tests without a licence granted by the Home Secretary under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, which I am advised
he does not hold; but I propose to invite him to concur in the suggested scheme of experiments, and to be present during their conduct by the responsible officers of the Ministry's veterinary staff.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is it seriously proposed to move infected animals from all over the country to Pirbright in order that the experiment should be carried out there rather than carry it out on the spot when an outbreak occurs, and does the right hon. Gentleman know that his Department has already—I have letters in my hand—tried to get from outside sources the requisite doses for the test instead of applying direct to Dr. Shaw himself, who claims that his remedy is both a cure and a preventative?

Mr. WOOD: I do not know what correspondence my hon. Friend may or may not have in his hand. The facts are as I have stated in my answer.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the

STATEMENT showing distribution of (a) reported and (b) confirmed cases of Foot-and-Mouth Disease since the 1st January, 1925, and the number of animals slaughtered.


County.
Cases reported.
Cases confirmed.
Animals slaughtered.


Cattle.
Sheep.
Pigs.


Chester
…
…
5
2
55
—
25


Dorset
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Essex
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Isle of Wight
…
…
1
1
43
—
38


Lancaster
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Norfolk
…
…
2
1
23
—
—


Northampton
…
…
7
1
45
77
4


Northumberland
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Nottingham
…
…
1
1
181
—
270


Salop
…
…
3
—
—
—
—


Somerset
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Stafford
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Suffolk
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Sussex, East
…
…
4
4
155
55
102


Sussex, West
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Warwick
…
…
4
4
88
—
1


Wiltshire
…
…
1
—
—
—
—


Worcester
…
…
1
1
21
—
29


Totals
…
…
37
15
611
132
469

THE WASH (RECLAMATION).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any portion of the Wash was reclaimed by the employment of ex-enemy prisoners during

desirability of offering a substantial prize, a really substantial sum, for a remedy for this disease?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will this test be made at once, in view of the seriousness of the outbreaks that are constantly occurring in this country?

Mr. WOOD: I propose that the test should be made as soon as the cattle-testing station is ready for the test to be made.

Mr. NUTTALL: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cases of foot-and-mouth disease that have been reported since 1st January, 1925, the counties in which the outbreaks occurred, and the number of cattle and sheep in consequence destroyed?

Mr. WOOD: I am arranging to have the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

the period of the War; if so, what was the cost per acre of such reclaimed land; whether the land is now being used for the growing of cereal crops; and to whom it belongs or what rent is being paid for it?

Mr. WOOD: As the reply is necessarily long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

No portion of the Wash was entirely reclaimed by ex-enemy prisoners of war, but in 1917–18 such prisoners were employed in filling gaps in a bank originally constructed by the Nene Outfall Commissioners for the enclosure of an area of 574 acres. In 1918–19, prisoners were further employed on the construction of a new bank for the enclosure of a further area of about 389 acres, and had completed about 600 yards of this bank when they were withdrawn. The completion of this work has now been taken in hand as part of the scheme sanctioned by the late Government. As regards the 574 acres above referred to as actually closed, it is impossible to state the actual cost of embanking and reclaiming, as the work was partly done by the Nene Commissioners and partly by ex-enemy prisoners. This area is now used for the growing of cereal crops, and is owned as to 324 acres by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, and as to the balance by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The rent obtained by the two Departments is, approximately, £1,326 per annum, but this covers certain buildings erected on the portion belonging to the Commissioners of Crown Lands.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres of agricultural land owned by public authorities in England and Wales?

Mr. WOOD: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to give the total acreage of agricultural land owned by public authorities in England and Wales. The number of acres owned by county councils and councils of county boroughs under the Small Holdings Acts, 1908–1919, in England and Wales, is 358,102. County councils also own 4,069 acres for the purposes of agricultural education.

Oral Answers to Questions — SKILLED WORKERS (EMIGRATION).

Mr. WINDSOR: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many skilled workers have emigrated abroad each year since the War; and to what industries they belonged?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am sending the hon. Member a reprint of tables published in the Board of Trade Journal of 28th August, 1924, in which the particulars he desires are given for each of the years 1921 to 1923. Corresponding particulars were not compiled for earlier post-War years, and the particulars for 1924 are not yet completed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will these figures be published as a Parliamentary Report?

Mr. SAMUEL: If hon Gentlemen desire it, I could have that done, but a copy of the figures may be obtained on application to the Board of Trade.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not a fact that the bulk of our expert workmen are going to America and other protected countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA PROTOCOL.

Colonel DAY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if any of the Governments that have expressed their adherence to the Geneva Protocol have ratified their representatives' signatures?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no country has yet ratified the Protocol.

Mr. DALTON: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Law Officers of the Crown have advised that Article 5 of the Geneva Protocol weakens the reservations of Article 15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which were designed to prevent any interference by the League in matters of domestic jurisdiction; if so, whether he will communicate their opinions in writing to this House; and, if not, on the basis of what other advice, if any, did he declare in Geneva that Article 5 of the Protocol had this effect?

Mr. McNEILL: The statement of my right hon. Friend at Geneva is to be the
subject of debate to-morrow, and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to defer till then the discussion of details such as that referred to in his question.

Mr. DALTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement is in direct conflict with the statement the British Legal Adviser made on the 30th December last at Geneva?

Mr. McNEILL: That is just one of the details which I would ask the hon. Member to postpone till to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAY DAY (OBSERVANCE).

Mr. THURTLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to make the 1st May a national holiday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the steps suggested in the question would tend to create abroad an atmosphere of good will?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (WRITTEN SPEECHES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, for the purpose of meeting the convenience of Members and saving the time of the House, he is prepared to consider the suggestion of adopting the method pursued in another legislative chamber of accepting written speeches in lieu of the spoken word for subsequent publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal is practicable or would meet the general desire of the House.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it right that we should leave this bright idea to America alone, and is it not a fact that we have an excellent precedent in the arrangements that are made for Written Answers; and will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, consider it as far as those Members who have failed to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker are concerned?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there be any general desire in the House, perhaps the hon. Member will communicate through the usual channels.

Mr. DUNCAN: Would it not then be possible for Members to hand in their speeches, and never attend the House at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN RECEIVERSHIP, WALES.

Major OWEN: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Crown Receivership for Wales becomes vacant on 30th September next, and that a person possessing no knowledge of the Welsh language has been already appointed, he will say whether there were no suitable candidates with a knowledge 4 Welsh available; or whether the reason for making an appointment so long in advance was to enable the candidate to make a start in learning the Welsh language?

Mr. WOOD: I have no doubt that suitable candidates for this post with a knowledge of Welsh could have been found. There was, however, no one so qualified on the establishment of the Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands, and if the appointment had been made from outside, not only would it have prevented a well-deserved promotion, but an opportunity would have been lost of effecting an economy in administration expenses by combining the duties of the post with those of the present Crown Receiver for the Isle of Man. The appointment has been made in advance to enable him both to become familiar with his new duties and to perfect his knowledge of the Welsh language before the present Receiver retires.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could anyone get a grip of the Welsh language in six months?

Mr. WOOD: My hon. Friend will notice that my answer said that the six months was required only to enable him to perfect his knowledge.

Major OWEN: Is it proposed to put this gentleman through any kind of examination at the end of six months; and, if he does not know the language by that time, is it proposed to appoint anybody else?

Mr. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can rest well assured that he will have an ample knowledge of Welsh to enable him to carry out his duties.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that you cannot learn the Welsh alphabet in six months?

Mr. MORRIS: If he has not sufficient knowledge of the language at the end of six months, will another appointment be made?

Mr. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to wait till after the six months is past.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT OF HORSES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state how long the Committee appointed by him to consider the exportation of horses for butchery purposes will take to prepare its Report?

Mr. WOOD: As the inquiry has only just commenced, I am not yet in a position to say when a Report may be expected, but I should not anticipate that the investigation need be of long duration.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the inquiry include the question of horses slaughtered for food in this country, i.e., how far they are slaughtered by the humane killer?

Mr. WOOD: I do not think so, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I gave the terms of reference last week, and, if my memory serves me correctly, they are concerned only with the export trade in horses.

Mr. BUXTON: If it be not too late, will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange to include the point?

Mr. WOOD: I will certainly consider that, if it be not too late. I will put that point to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (GERMAN COMPETITION).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of ships have been ordered by an English firm of
shipowners from German shipbuilders; if so, whether he intends referring the matter to a Committee of the Board of Trade under the safeguarding of industries proposal; and whether he will take steps to stop the importation of foreign-built ships into this country under the same conditions as with other imports which come under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, it would be open to the shipbuilding industry to make an application to the Board of Trade in accordance with the terms of the White Paper (Cmd. 2327) if that course were thought expedient. I am not sure that I altogether understand the last part of the question. The importation of the articles scheduled to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, is not prohibited, but only made subject to duty. The list could not be extended without legislation.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a trap laid by the German shipbuilders in order to ascertain the cost of producing ships in this country so that they may obtain their subsidy from the Government; and, secondly, whether he is aware that it enables them to compare the cost of building ships in Germany and in this country, with a view to forcing the wages down in this country and also in Germany?

Sir F. WISE: Is not the loss of this order and other orders attributable to the Dawes Report?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not sure that that arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD ANIMALS, BARNET.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that premises adjoining dwelling-houses at Barnet have been acquired and transformed by a London livestock dealer into an elaborate menagerie from which wild animals frequently escape into neighbouring gardens and houses; whether, seeing that in reply to repre
sentations made to the Ministry on the subject by the Barnet Urban District Council and the police authorities last August it was intimated that unless the animals were kept under proper control The licence for their importation might be cancelled, he will say whether he is satisfied that the animals have since been kept under proper control, and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. WOOD: I am aware of the nature of the premises mentioned. My jurisdiction is limited to the control of imported animals, while undergoing quarantine, to prevent the introduction of disease in accordance with the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts. A consignment of llamas were quarantined there in August last, but in the same month the occupier was informed that the premises could not in future be approved for quarantine purposes, and I have therefore no control over any animals which may now be kept there.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to some other Member of the Government in this matter, which all Members of the Government seem to refuse?

Mr. WOOD: I will gladly make representations, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend observes, there is some doubt as to whom they should be made. The fact is, no doubt, that this question is one that was never in contemplation when either Governments, or Departments, or legislation were set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has ascertained how long it would take to clear the Chamber and Galleries of the House of Commons in case of fire or riot if a full House were sitting?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I can assure the hon. Member that adequate precautions are taken against a possible outbreak of fire in this building.
I am informed that the House could probably be cleared in about seven minutes. As regards the question of a riot, it is, perhaps, hardly necessary to consider that contingency.

Sir W. DAVISON: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what progress has been made in the proposed alterations with a view to securing an improvement in the ventilation of the House?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Provision for the equipment of the ventilation of the Chamber is made in the Estimates for 1925–26, and the work will be put in hand during the Autumn recess, if Parliamentary sanction be obtained.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are steps being taken to have everything ready in the way of Estimates, so that we may not continue this very out-of-date system of having our boots dusted before we breathe the air?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are such proposals being subjected, first of all, to the members of the Research Council who prepared a most elaborate report on the subject before the War?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: All these considerations are being taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

FRAMLINGHAM CASTLE.

Lord HUNTINGFIELD: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the number of men employed on work at Framlingham Castle; if any of these were unemployed and ex-service men; and what is the amount of the sum to be expended on this-work?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The number of men at present employed on this work is 54, all of whom were unemployed, and 32 of whom are ex-service men. The amount of the sum to be expended on the work is, approximately, £1,500, which was specifically provided to relieve unemployment.

Lord HUNTINGFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men are actually unemployed before they are taken on for this work?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, that is the case. They were all unemployed before being taken on.

ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications received by the Unemployment Grants Committee for assistance under the scheme as outlined in Circular U.G.C. 16 (revised); by public utility companies; the number refused grants; and the amounts granted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am informed that 101 applications have been received from public utility companies. Grants have been approved in 72 eases in respect of schemes estimated to cost £2,879,863. Grants have been refused in 16 cases, and of the remaining 12 cases, eight applications have been withdrawn and four are still under consideration.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (STRATFORD)

Mr. VIANT: 61.
(for Mr. GROVES) asked the Minister of Labour the names of the representatives of the workers and employers, respectively, forming the Advisory Committee Of the Stratford Employment Exchange and the organisations or firms which nominated them; and whether the Ministry reimburse any such representatives for loss of wages incurred?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the answer to the first part of the question contains a list of names, I will, the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Compensation for wages actually lost in consequence of attendance at official meetings is payable to such members in accordance with a scale approved by the Treasury.

Following is the list:

STRATFORD EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE.

Chairman: Mr. W. T. Towler.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. H. Turnidge.

EMPLOYERS' PANEL

Member and Nominating Body.
Mr. A. E. Symes, London Master Builders' Association.
30
Mr. F. B. Woolford, Messrs. F. Grover and Company, Limited.
Mr. W. C. Calderwood, J.P., Messrs. Palmer and Company.
Mr. W. B. Reidie, The Gas Light and Coke Company.
Mr. C. W. L. Glaze, Great Eastern Railway Company Works, Stratford.
Mr. T. R. Hill, Messrs. H. Eadie and Co.
Mrs. H. L. Gill (Individual—Laundry Proprietress).
(One vacancy.)

WORKPEOPLE'S PANEL.

Member and Nominating Body.
Mr. G. E. Lord, National Builders' Labourers and Constructional Workers' Society.
Mr. E. A. Brooker, Amalgamated Engineering Union (London District Committee).
Mr. H. Turnidge, United Society of Boilermakers, Iron and Steel Shipbuilders, London, No. 4 Branch.
Mr. W. E. Payne and Mrs. F. Schwarts, Workers' Union.
Mr. A. Rouse, Transport and General Workers' Union.
Mr. T. G. Thompson, National Union of Railwaymen.
Mr. R. Gardiner, National Society of Coppersmiths, Braziers and Metalworkers.

ADDITIONAL MEMBERS' PANEL.

Member and Nominating Body.
Councillor H. J. Rumsey, West Ham Corporation.
Councillor S. Bulling, Choice of Employment Committee and West Ham Board of Guardians.
Mr. W. J. Clare, British Legion.
Mr. J. Holland, Essex Territorial Force Association.
Mr. G. Haley.
Mr. W. J. Cook, The National Foremen's Association, and Allied Trades (Eastern Centre) Stratford Branch.
Mr. J. A. King, West Ham Board of Guardians.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL SHIPBUILDING.

Mr. AMMON: 74.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give the details as to the countries building ships of war, and the types of ships to a total of 324 under construction?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 2349, Fleets (The British Empire and Foreign Countries). The number of submarines building and built by the United States of America, shown on page 3 of the Paper, should be decreased and increased by three respectively, thereby reducing the total number of vessels building from 352 to 349. I may mention, however, that the 349 are being built by only the seven Powers shown in the Paper. In addition, many of the smaller naval Powers are also building war vessels. The number building in the world is, therefore, somewhat higher than 349, and the British proportion correspondingly less.

Oral Answers to Questions — S. S. "MAURETANIA."

Commander BELLAIRS: 75.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, owing to her size, oil consumption, and the crew required, the "Mauretania" is of no use as a naval vessel in war; and whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to have the subsidy expense of £90,000 per annum transferred to the Post Office for the speedy carriage of the mails?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The subsidy is paid under an agreement sanctioned by Parliament which, apart from the conditions governing the surviving ship "Mauretania," containes a number of provisions advantageous to the Naval Service, as my hon. and gallant Friend will see from Command Paper No. 1703 of 1903. The agreement expires in November, 1927, and, in the circumstances, I do not see any sufficient ground for making any alteration for the short remaining period.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CRIMES, SHETLAND.

Mr. MacINTYRE: 76.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that within recent months a number of serious crimes have been committed in the neighbourhood of Railsbrough, Uesting, Shetland, and that the local police have failed to discover the perpetrators of these crimes; and whether he will take
steps to reorganise and improve the, administration of the police force in Shetland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have received a representation with reference to the action of the police in the matter referred to, and am in communication with the Standing Joint Committee of Zetland. I will communicate further with my hon. Friend. The question of bringing Zetland under the general Acts relating to the police in Scotland is now under consideration.

Mr. MacINTYRE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Procurator Fiscal is now a man of 80 years of age, and unfit for his work?

Sir R. HAMILTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is he aware that the Procurator Fiscal has done his work to the utmost satisfaction for a great number of years?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am making very full inquiries into the whole case, and will deal with it later.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it usual to attack an official like the Procurator Fiscal in this House by question and answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it was rather an unfortunate supplementary question.

JUTE FACTORIES, DUNDEE (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 88.
(for Mr. JOHNSTON) asked the Home Secretary the number of accidents in jute-weaving factories in Dundee during the past 12 months caused by shuttles flying out of four-yard wide looms, and the number of such accidents that can be classed as serious; and what steps he is taking to ascertain and remove the cause of these accidents?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): There have been 12 accidents from this cause since March, 1924. One worker injured on the 9th instant has not yet returned to work; of the others, six were off two weeks, one three weeks, one four weeks, two five weeks and one three months. The factory inspector reports that the manager of the works chiefly affected has been experimenting with new shuttle guards, and has
now devised a type which it is believed will prove effective. The whole of the four-yard looms at these works are being fitted with this new guard. The inspector has been instructed to continue to watch this question very closely and to see that the most suitable type of guard is provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISH (PRESERVATION AS FOOD).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is being done to encourage research in the direction of the scientific preservation of fish as an article of food; and what, if any, results have already been achieved in this direction?

Mr. WOOD: The Fish Preservation Committee of the Food Investigation Board has for some time past been engaged in investigating the question of the preservation of fish by various methods, and, in particular, by freezing. The Committee have issued three interim Reports, and, in addition, a general account of their work is contained in the annual reports issued by the Food Investigation Board. These investigations have not yet resulted in any definite conclusions, but are being continued.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERMEN'S CLAIMS, BRANCASTER.

Lord FERMOY: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the claims put forward by the Brancaster fishermen for loss of fishing caused by the use of the adjacent anti-aircraft artillery range during last summer have been considered; and, if so, whether any compensation has been awarded?

Mr. WOOD: The Report of the Inspector, who went to Brancaster on Wednesday last to investigate these claims, has now been received, and will be forwarded to the War Office as soon as it has been considered. I hope that it may be possible to deal with the matter at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR FORCES (BRITISH AND FRENCH).

Commander BELLAIRS: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any approximate estimate has been made or
could be made on the basis of present experience as to what is likely to be the size of the gross Air Estimates when a home defence force of 52 squadrons is attained; and whether he will state the number of squadrons for home defence for which the present Air Estimates provide?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As regards the first part of the question, any forecast of the amount of the gross Air Estimates of a future year would be based on so many uncertain and variable factors that it would be valueless and misleading. As regards the second part, it is expected that seven, and possibly eight, new home defence squadrons will, in the financial year 1925–1926, be added to the existing 18.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH AIR FORCES AND CIVIL AVIATION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total expenditure of France for air forces and civil aviation proposed for 1925, and calculated at a rate of exchange of 92 francs to the £?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that, for the reasons stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 25th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), it is not practicable to state the figures for service and civil aviation in the French Budgets.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN TRIBUTE LOANS.

Sir F. WISE: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any interest and sinking fund for the Egyptian tribute loans of 1891 and 1894 has been deposited with the National Bank of Egypt?

Mr. McNEILL: The Egyptian Government informed His Majesty's Government last year of their intention to deposit in a blocked account with the National Bank of Egypt the sums required to meet the service of these loans.

Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what was the amount?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. LANSBURY: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to state when the Interim Report promised by the Food Prices Commission is likely to be issued?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) on 12th March, to which I am not able to add anything. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely the hon. Gentleman can tell me the approximate date?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I think the hon. Member will find the reply to that in the answer, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Commission is investigating the present price of bread, in view of the sudden drop in the cost?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FOREIGN TRADE).

Sir F. WISE: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the balance of trade of the German Republic for the last three months?

—
1921–22.
1922–23.
1923–24.


Number of necessitous children fed
…
552,821
127,636
79,716


Number of meals provided to those children
…
57,964,220
14,991,798
8,697,367


Average cost per meal
…
3.88d.
3.93d.
3.80d.

Owing to complete details not having been furnished in some areas, the above figures exclude a certain number of cases in which part payment was made by parents.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ATTENDANCE).

Mr. VIANT: 77.
(for Mr. GROVES) asked the President of the Board of Education the total number of children in attendance at the elementary schools of

Mr. SAMUEL: The latest particulars available regarding the foreign trade of Germany relate to the month of January. For the three months ended January last the recorded value of merchandise imported into Germany was, approximately, £182,000,000, and that of merchandise exported, approximately, £107,000,000, the excess of imports being thus £75,000,000. These figures relate to imports for home consumption and exports of domestic products.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (MEALS).

Colonel DAY: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many necessitous children received meals in elementary schools during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively; how many meals were served; and what was the cost per meal?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

Assuming that "necessitous" cases were those in which either no payment or only part payment for the meals was made by parents, the information asked for is as follows:

England and Wales in 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively; and the total number of trained teachers serving in these schools for the same period?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question consists largely of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information desired:

ENGLAND AND WALES.


Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local. Education Authorities.


—
Average Attendance.
Number of College-trained Certificated Teachers.


1921–22
…
…
…
…
…
5,180,783
82,491 (31st March).


1922–23
…
…
…
…
…
5,136,008
83,059 (31st March).


1923–24
…
…
…
…
…
5,024,417
Not yet available.

Final figures of the number of college-trained certificated teachers employed on 31st March, 1924, are not yet available, because the scrutiny of the returns is not yet complete. From such information, however, as I possess it would appear that the number of such teachers is likely to show an increase of about 2,000 over the previous year's figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEKONDI-KUMASI RAILWAY.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of the original estimate for the realignment of the Sekondi-Kumasi Railway; and how does it compare with the actual cost of the completed work?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The original estimate for improving the Sekondi-Kumasi Railway, which included the cost of relaying the line as well as the cost of realignment, amounted to £1,000,000. It was estimated that £582,000 of this expenditure would have been necessary whether the railway were realigned or not. The work is not yet finished, and I am, therefore, unable to give figures of the final cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COLONIES (CAPITAL WORKS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any regular organised system in operation in our Crown Colonies for an independent technical, as distinct from the usual Audit Department, examination of the accounts of expenditure on large capital works carried out Departmentally, so as to ensure that the sums voted are properly accounted for in the volume and quality of work provided for in the original estimates, as would be
done were a contractor employed to do the work?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The arrangements for supervising expenditure on works carried out Departmentally depend on the circumstances of each ease. For example, in the construction of East African railways under Departmental control, most of the work is let out on minor contracts, the execution of which is examined by the engineer in charge of construction and a special accounting staff. On other cases there is not usually an independent technical check of the kind mentioned, but the expenditure is audited by the Audit Department of the Colony, which in most Colonies works under the Director of Colonial Audit in London, while the responsibility for the proper execution of the work rests with the head of the technical Department concerned who, in the case of railways, has obviously the greatest interest in its being carried out efficiently, in order that the working and maintenance of the line under his responsibility may not suffer by any defect.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TROOPS STATIONED AT ABBASSIA.

Colonel DAY: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War what troops are stationed at Abbassia; whether, in view of the independence of Egypt, it will be necessary to retain troops at this station in future years; and whether the barracks, stables, officers' mess and quarters, ordnance depot, and remount depot to be constructed this year will be erected by British or Egyptian contractors?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): There are stationed at Abbassia:

2 cavalry regiments.
1 battalion of infantry.
39
1 brigade, Royal Horse Artillery.
1 field company, Royal Engineers.
2 signal companies.
1 armoured car company.
No change in the disposition of the troops in Egypt is contemplated. Tenders for the new work will be called for in due course. I cannot say yet who the contractors will be.

TROOPS IN GERMAN TERRITORY.

Sir F. WISE: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for War the net cost of the British forces on the Rhine for the last three months?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The cost of the British troops in occupation of German territory for the three months December, 1924, and January and February, 1925, exclusive of accommodation and other services formerly provided without charge by the German Government, is estimated at £375,000, of which some £310,000 will be repayable to Army funds out of the "Dawes" Annuity to be paid by Germany. As from 1st September, 1924, the cost of accommodation and other services provided by the German Government is to be paid for and recovered from the "Dawes" Annuity, but it is not yet possible to state to what this charge will amount.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC, CARLISLE.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention to acquire a site immediately opposite the Robert Ferguson Schools, in Carlisle, for the purpose of erecting thereon a new public-house; and has he considered the desirability of erecting premises for the sale of intoxicating drink in such close proximity to a school?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second, therefore, does not arise.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 89.
asked the Home Secretary the names of the members of the local advisory committee of the Carlisle State Management Districts Scheme
who have been employed professionally in connection with the enterprise; and the total amount paid to them as remuneration for each year since the adoption of the scheme?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member last Tuesday.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: The right hon. Gentleman did not state the total amount expended?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Well, that is why I said that I could not usefully add anything to my reply. It is quite true that there are certain gentlemen connected with the Carlisle Committee who have been paid professional fees for professional work, but unless it is very important I do not think it is desirable, or useful, to give the figures.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that these should be employed by the Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One of these gentlemen has done no work at all, or been paid anything for the last 3½ years. Since my time, and just at the time of my taking office, there has only been some £40 spent for professional work, although, personally, I have nothing to do with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, BIRMINGHAM (SENTENCES).

Mr. COOPER: 85.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of two youths, Stephen McDonald, aged 16, and Albert Staff, aged 18, who were recently sentenced at Birmingham Sessions to three years in a Borstal institution and six months' hard labour, respectively, for carrying off two farthings from a warehouse into which they had broken; and whether he will consider the desirability of reducing these sentences?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am making inquiries and would suggest that my hon. Friend should repeat his question on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

Mr. GRACE: 86.
asked the Home Secretary how many appeals have been heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal; how many are, respectively, from Courts of Quarter Sessions, the Central Criminal Court, and the King's Bench Division (including assizes); and how many have been successful in respect of each class?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate

Class of Court.
Appeals heard.*
Conviction or Sentence quashed.
Conviction or Sentence quashed and some other Conviction or Sentence substituted.


County and Borough Quarter Sessions.
664
119
175


Central Criminal Court
175
32
18


King's Bench Division and Assizes.
299
46
41


* The figures of "Appeals heard" do not include applications for leave to appeal refused by the single Judge or by the Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY RISKS).

Mr. J. BECKETT: 87.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Rigby Swift at Leicester Assizes in favour of compulsory insurance for motor drivers against third-party damage; and whether he will ascertain the opinions of other authorities on the necessity for such legislation?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 17th March to the hon. Member for the Melton Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

PETROL (TRAVELLING TANKS).

Mr. VIANT: 91.
(for Mr. GROVES) asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the danger to the public resulting from the presence on the highways of the present large travelling tanks of petrol and lorry-loads of petrol cans passing through congested streets; whether he is aware that recently the Fire Brigades' Association called attention to the danger; and whether he will take steps so to regulate this traffic that these tanks be moved at night only?

a table of statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table promised:

Court of Criminal Appeal—Appeals Heard.

From the commencement of the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1908 to the end of 1923, 1,942 appeals have been heard by the Court with the following results:—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. I am fully alive to the dangers involved in the transport of petroleum by road. Provisions for enabling Regulations to be made to provide against these dangers were contained in the Petroleum Bill of 1923; and the question of re-introducing legislation on this subject is now under consideration.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: 92.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that on Monday, the 16th inst., at 5 p.m., there were 16 stationary tramcars and a similar number of moving omnibuses, as well as a large number of other vehicles, an Westminster Bridge, a load which constitutes a danger to the bridge, and that similar numbers of vehicles are on the bridge almost every evening; and whether he proposes to take steps to see that the bridge is not overloaded, with the same disastrous consequences as have occurred in the case of Waterloo Bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no means of verifying my hon. and gallant Friend's computations. I am informed, however, by the London County Council, who are responsible for the structure, that the state of the bridge is entirely satisfactory, and that it is quite capable of bearing the full load of vehicles.

Captain O'CONNOR: May we take it that the figures which I have given as the result of my own personal observations are a reasonable load for the bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it that the bridge is entirely satisfactory, and can take any amount of traffic that is likely to go over it.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 93.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company has issued £6,000,000 of further capital in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred, or to be incurred, since the 1st January, 1913, and not included in the capital expenditure forming the basis on which interest was allowed at the end of the period curing which the Government was in possession, although the company had on the 1st January, 1925, nearly £7,000,000 of cash in hand and also investments in Government securities to an amount of nearly £13,000,000, making a total of nearly £20,000,000 of liquid assets, and although the contemplated expenditure for the year 1925 is only about £1,375,000, and that this £6,000,000 of new capital has been raised in consequence of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, which makes it necessary that the railway company, which already has large liquid funds, should increase its capital in order to secure their proper standard revenue; and, as other railway companies may also have to raise unrequired capital for the same reason, whether he proposes so to amend the Railway Act as to prevent large sums of unnecessary capital being raised by railway companies where it is urgently needed for the development of industry and for other purposes where it can be more profitably used?

Colonel ASHLEY: As at present advised I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation to amend the Railways Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING RESEARCH BOARD.

Captain WATERHOUSE (for Viscountess ASTOR): 65.
asked the Minister of Health who is the representative of his Department on the Building Research Board; whether he can yet state how the
work of this Board is to be developed in order to assist housing; and at what cost?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The representative of the Ministry on the Building Research Board is Mr. Raymond Unwin. The work of the Building Research Board is being extended—

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman reading the answer to Question 65?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: I received a message from the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asking that the question should be postponed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOOK-BINDING AND PRINTING INDUSTRIES DISPUTE.

Mr. ERSKINE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes taking any step, in the nature of intervention, or otherwise, to bring about a settlement of the dispute in the book-binding and general printing industries, which threatens serious consequences to allied trades.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I am watching the situation with very great care indeed, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement about it.

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is a fact that the Book-binders' Union refuses to carry out a recommendation—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must see a question of that kind. The hon. Member did not send me that.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Conciliation Department of the Ministry has made any approach whatever to either of the parties in the dispute?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Informally the officers of my Department have been in touch with the respective parties, and, as everybody knows, the services of my Department are always available if I receive intimation from the parties that they hope to have them made available to them, but I have received no notice of that kind.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I ask whether it is always the practice of the conciliation department never to approach disputants in matters of this kind unless they are directly approached by either parties to the dispute?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think, if I may say so, it would be very undesirable at this moment to begin a discussion of this matter. I think it could really do no good from the point of view of getting peace between the parties at this moment.

MARQUESS CURZON.

PRIME MINISTER'S TRIBUTE.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope, Sir, with the permission of the House, to make a few observations on the loss the Government and the country have sustained by the death of one of the greatest men and the most vivid personalities of this generation. I do so before this House in the knowledge that there are few here who can remember him in his earlier years, when, as a young man, he was a distinguished Member of this House, and one to whose future everyone looked forward with hope and with confidence. But I am particularly anxious, in a case like this, to try to give Members of the House some impression of the man himself, what lay behind, and what was the real man, which has been somewhat obscured in more recent years when he had withdrawn more from Debates and from appearances in public.
It is difficult for us—who knew Lord Curzon after great honours had come to him, earned during a long life of service—to realise that he started many years ago with few advantages except his natural abilities and such advantages as might have accrued to him from belonging to a noble family. He was, in many senses of the word, a self-made man, because it was his natural ability, his fierce industry, and his courage which made him, from an early period of life, map out the scheme of what he would do. He was the architect of his own fortune; he made his own friends; and he qualified himself for the great tasks of his life, not only by ceaseless study from early years, but by travel in what were then comparatively unknown parts of the world, by books,
and by consorting with men of all kinds and in all countries.
His interests were exceptionally wide, and he proceeded to make himself a master of every subject in which his keen mind took an interest. So it is that the death of one primarily known to us as a statesman and a politician leaves more gaps in the public life of this country than would be the ease with almost any other living man. As a student of the classics, a deep student of history, of pictures and of archæology, his loss will be felt as much among the Trustees of the British Museum and the Trustees of the National Gallery as in the Cabinet, and his loss will perhaps be greatest in that Oxford that he loved so much. Oxford, as we know, "whispering from her towers the last enchantments of the Middle Age," spoke to him as she speaks to all her sons who have ears to hear, and to him perhaps more than most. Especially so, I think, because one of the keys to Lord Curzon's life is to remember that his roots had struck deep into pre-industrial England, and it is from an early England that he drew the sources of his strength. So it was that he had, possibly, less acquaintance with and interest in many of these strange currents of modern life in England, his mind turning naturally more to England in foreign and Imperial polities; and yet—let there be no misunderstanding here—no proposal that could be made for the betterment of our people at home was welcomed more eagerly than by him, in very much the same spirit that it would have been welcomed by young England in the days of Disraeli's youth, of which period, in many ways, he seemed to be, even to-day, a member.
His learning, the learning of years, and the natural aptitude which he had, gave him a power of natural expression, whether in writing or in speech, that would have been remarkable at any time. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of it was that, great as it appeared to us when we heard him speaking in either this House or in another place, his quickness of mind was such that it was no less great when impromptu and without notice. The subject matter and the humour bubbled up afresh, and at a moment's notice.
With that equipment and that training, and with the training he obtained in this
House, it is little wonder that he was able to enter upon one of the greatest phases of his life's work in India at so early an age for one occupying a position of such immense authority. There is no doubt that, while he has always been and always was a man whose heart and soul were for England and the Empire, yet his best friends would own that it was India and the East that held his imagination from his early youth until the end of his life. He regarded the presence of the Englishman in India as the presence of a man with a mission, and he regarded him as the servant of our country on a sacred mission. He never flinched from those high ideals and earnest endeavours, and, in spite of all, he held the scales of justice even in that great country.
But there, just as in his life afterwards, and in his political life, while he never sought popularity, he was always grateful for appreciation. He was, it is true, exacting to others, and he demanded a very high standard, but he was not nearly so exacting to others as he was to himself. The standard that he demanded from others he demanded in a triple measure from himself.
But these things that I have said are well known, and they may be found in biographies. But I want, if I may, for a few minutes to try to look a little more under the surface. Lord Curzon was a man who erected a façade about himself, a façade which deceived many people, and was the product of a natural shyness, an intense and exquisite sensitiveness. It is no uncommon thing, as each of us may know in our own lives, and moving among the men we know, that human beings in this world who suffer from sensitiveness do put something between themselves and their fellow men to ward off the shafts which they dread, while underneath there beats the kindest, warmest human heart.
There was a nature, contrary to what many might believe who did not know him, of the uttermost simplicity. The Eternal Boy lived in him until the last week of his life. He was the soul of loyalty to his colleagues, he bore no grudges in political life, he pursued a straight course; and all this in the face of daily and constant physical suffering. Of that many knew nothing, because it was a thing of which he never spoke.
But I have seen him at the Cabinet, I have seen him at a dinner party, and if he were not able to have the necessary cushions to support his back, his suffering would be as the suffering of a man on the rack. And that he fought against day by day. When we look back upon him, I feel that what Lord Rosebery said of William Pitt to be so true of him, that, whatever men may feel about his life or his acts, they must be agreed that England had in this generation no more patriotic spirit, none more intrepid, and none more pure.
I want before I sit down to say one or two things that no one but I can say. A Prime Minister sees human nature bared to the bone, and it was my chance to see him twice when he suffered great disappointment—the time when I was preferred to him as Prime Minister, and the time when I had to tell him that he could render greater service to the country as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence than in the Foreign Office. Each of those occasions was a profound and bitter disappointment to him. But never for one moment when he had faced the facts did he show by word, look or innuendo, or by any reference to the subject afterwards, that he was dissatisfied. He bore no grudge, and he pursued no other course than the one I expected of him—of doing his duty where it was decided that he could best render service.
I felt on both those occasions that I had seen in him—in that strange alloy which we call human nature—a vien of the purest gold. He died as he would have desired, and as we should all desire to die, in harness, a harness put on himself in youth, and worn triumphantly through a long life, a harness which he never cast off until his feet had entered the river. It may well be, when we look back on that life of devoted service to his country, and of a perpetual triumph of the spirit over the flesh, that in some places in this earth, early on that Friday morning, there may have been heard the faint echoes of the trumpets that sounded for him on the Other Side.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I rise to add my voice and the voice of my colleagues to the tribute that has just been paid by the Leader of the House to the late Lord Curzon, and to give expression
to our appreciation of a great public servant. It may show his family in what high esteem he was held by the House of Commons. I cannot, of course, enter into those delicate intimacies that the Leader of the House has just revealed. I am afraid that my acquaintance with Lord Curzon was more casual than intimate. I am afraid that I am one of those who only just penetrated that extraordinary armour that the proud and sensitive man so often puts on in order to shield himself from the world, an armour which does more than shield him from the world; as those who have it know only too well, its existence increases some of the misunderstandings that they desire to avoid. But as one who just penetrated, barely penetrated, that armour that was worn by the late Lord Curzon, I did feel that behind it there was the mind, the courage, and the faithfulness of one who was cast in a very large human mould.
Lord Curzon sat at the knee of a generation that sat with stiffer dignity on its chairs than we do and that talked in more sonorous tones than we do. He always reminded me of some of those people whom we have all known who quaintly appear on high days and holidays in garments cut after the fashion of the earlier Georgeans. Lord Curzon's manner always carried us back to the antique. He had a Fine pomposity and a magnificent openness and roundness of demeanour, and when we see them exemplified in men of high dignity, we sometimes wonder if their loss has not been a real loss to the amenities of civilised life. If it be true that the Whigs were distinguished by class exclusiveness, by a conviction that only down their own line the class of governors came, and by a conviction that their own interests were as near as no matter absolutely identical with the interests of the State, and yet, along with this, by a very rigid conception of public honour and public duty, then I think Lord Curzon would not have objected to be enrolled among that very distinguished generation of men.
I saw him in two aspects, both magnificent, both impressive. I saw him as the disciple, the aspostle, and the custodian of our artistic properties, as a lover of art, and a fine appreciator of literature. Then he was, as the Leader of the House expressed it, a boy; the façade fell away
and the armour put off. We saw nothing but an absorbed, completely interested connoisseur, one who could talk with openness of mind and geniality of spirit, and in that respect Lard Curzon did a service to the nation which it is very difficult for us at this early moment after his death to appreciate fully.
When I went to India for the first time, in my wanderings I came across magnificent pieces of Indian architecture, sometimes temples, sometimes summer houses, sometimes mere embankments coped with white marble, sometimes palaces, sometimes mere ruins of tombs and remnants like that. Before I had seen many of them I was very much struck with the sort of sacred care that their condition showed. I asked in Madras, I asked in Cawnpore, and I asked at various places who was the custodian of these things, and one and all replied, "His Excellency the Viceroy, Lord Curzon." Lord Curzon has left behind him in India an appreciation of the architecture and the arts of India which would have been very much more dim than it now is had he never gone out as Viceroy.
Then he added to his other great qualities his fine sense of public duty. I have never come across a man who, whatever our differences were and from whatever variety of angles we looked at our various problems, who assumed more readily, and who made you assume, of course, that the first duty of a man who professed to be a public man was to sacrifice everything to his public duty. That was why Lord Curzon would undergo the terrible pain from which he so often suffered and yet do his work.
I think the Leader of the House said something that perhaps I ought to repeat on account of an office which I held quite recently. Lord Curzon was very often blamed—I heard it in India, and I heard it at home—for overworking his subordinates. Those of us who, perhaps, are easier going, understand the complaint, but this may always be said for Lord Curzon: If he overworked anybody, the person he overworked most of all was himself. In the performance of his duty, he confused the hours of night and day—they were all one to him—and nobody can go to the Foreign Office now and look back upon the old files, should anything necessitate their production,
without being amazed at the amount of industry, the amount of knowledge, and the amount of patience that are written upon them by the hand of the late Lord Curzon. And so much more as an outsider than my right hon. Friend my tribute to Lord Curzon has to be paid. I am sure that the rebuffs of his exterior will fade and vanish with time and that what will remain will be the memory of a great public servant, a man who never stinted himself in doing his duty to the public, a man who was a fine colleague, a man who was a very high spirit, and had a very noble ideal of public duty which may well be emulated by his successors.

Sir JOHN SIMON: My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) would have been here to take his part to-day if his voice had sufficiently recovered, but in his absence it falls to me to express, in quite a few sentences, on behalf of the Liberals of the House, our desire to be associated in the fullest measure with the tributes which have been paid to this most accomplished and remarkable man. Occasions like these which occur from time to time as great figures pass away are always trying and difficult, very difficult for anybody who is called upon to say anything in the course of our proceedings. The object of all of us is not to indulge in indiscriminate praise, but to select for memory and admiration high and noble qualities which really mark out the particular individual whose loss we deplore. I think I speak for the House as a whole when I say that we feel that that duty has been very admirably discharged by both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition.
Without attempting at all to rival them or to go over the ground again, let me select two qualities which I have again and again had good reason to mark in the character of Lord Curzon—two qualities which, I think, specially distinguished him, and two qualities which it is well for Members of Parliament to dwell upon and to admire. First, I would put the unremitting and devoted diligence with which he prepared himself for and carried through every task which he undertook. He was a man of the most
unusual accomplishments, and he was not likely to be abashed or found wanting because he had to act without full preparation of speech or argument., and yet I doubt if there has been a man in our generation who has more constantly thought it his duty to prepare himself fully for every public task. In a phrase which is very often misquoted, Thomas Carlyle, in his life of Frederick, declares that
Genius is a trantscendant capacity for taking trouble first of all.
And certainly of all the great public figures of our time, and I should think—if we were to include them—even of past ages, Lord Curzon stands very high, if you apply that test to his public performances. I recall an incident which, perhaps, is the more striking because the circumstances were not in themselves very important. It occurred during the first Coalition Government. Lord Curzon was good enough to undertake the duty of representing the Home Office in the House of Lords, and on three or four occasions when I was Home Secretary matters arose in another place which called for an answer from the Departmental point of view. I shall always preserve, with the most unfailing admiration and respect, a memory of the way in which Lord Curzon, who had much greater matters of real importance to attend to at the time, not only was willing to put himself at the service of the Department, to learn up it might be some quite small and unimportant details, but insisted upon being fully and completely informed of every aspect of the controversy with which he might be called upon to deal. I do not suppose that Lord Curzon ever stamped a, piece of public work. Whether as Chancellor of an ancient University, whether as trustee of the artistic and architectural possessions of the nation, or whether in the varied field of his political activities, he showed from first to last a thoroughness which would have satisfied Mr. Gladstone himself.
The second quality, the only other that I will delay the House to refer to, is one which the Leader of the Opposition has already touched upon in a phrase. It is that quality which justifies acute controversy between honest men; I am rather disposed to say that it is that quality which alone makes public life tolerable.
It is the exercise of public spirit; and those of us who may have had most reason from time to time to differ from Lord Curzon in his policy, and, in some respects, in his outlook, were the very first to acknowledge that in him you had a splendid example of high-minded and disinterested public spirit. From his earliest years, by study, by travel, by writing, by taking every possible opportunity of association with affairs, he had prepared himself for the part he was to play. Neither poor health nor disappointed ambition ever dulled the edge of his resolve to devote the best that was in him to the work of the State. We hero in the House of Commons, where he first made his fame and first displayed his remarkable qualities of mind, knowledge and speech—we here to-day not only mourn the passing of a distinguished representative of a great political party, but we deplore a grievous impoverishment to the public service as a whole.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have hesitated very much whether it would be becoming in me, after the series of speeches that have been delivered, to add a word, but I do so for a special reason, of which I will tell the House presently. I am one who met Lord Curzon when he came, as a fortunate and triumphant youth, to London, and who spent 12 years as his colleague when he was a Member of the House of Commons. Nobody who did not go through these experiences can realise what was the loss to the House of

Commons when he ceased to be one of its Members. I would also add that I owe him innumerable acts of personal kindness, I was never deceived by external appearances, and I had many opportunities of realising the real kindly courtesy and the passionate affections that underlay what the Prime Minister has called his facade of reserve. My real reason, however, for rising, is that, as an English voice and a Scottish voice have been heard, I do not think I would be true to the generous instincts of my own people if I did not join an Irish voice to those of others. We have some quaint prophecies in our Irish history that have an uncanny method of being realised, or seeming to be realised, in future history; and one of these, which rather surprised me, was told me by an Irishman the other day. It was that an old Irish prophetess prophecied that one day an Irishman would be found weeping over an Englishman's grave. To-day I, as an Irishman, weep over a great Englishman's grave.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Proceedings on Reports of Supply may be taken this day after Eleven of the clock, and be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 107.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, G. C.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cooper, A. Duff


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Atkinson, C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balniel, Lord
Bullock, Captain M.
Crook, C. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Bennett, A. J.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Campbell, E. T.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Drewe, C.
Jacob, A. E.
Ramsden, E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Remnant, Sir James


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rice, Sir Frederick


Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. O.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fleming, D. P.
Loder, J. de V.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Forestier-Walker, L.
Looker, Herbert William
Sandon, Lord


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Savery, S. S.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Gee, Captain R.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mac Donald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Golf, Sir Park
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grace, John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grant, J. A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Macquisten, F. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Margesson, Captain D.
Tinne, J. A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hanbury, C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murchison, C. K.
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Neville, R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Holland, Sir Arthur
Oakley, T.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Holt, Capt. H. P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W.R., Ripon)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Huntingfield, Lord
Philipson, Mabel



Hurd, Percy A.
Pieiou, D. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pilcher, G.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Barnes, A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barr, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Gosling, Harry
Kelly, W. T.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenyon, Barnet


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, George


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Lee, F.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harris, Percy A.
Mackinder, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacLaren, Andrew


Crawford, H. E.
Hayes, John Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.




March, S.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Varley, Frank B.


Maxton, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


Montague, Frederick
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Morris, R. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, J. C


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


O'Connor, Thomas P.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wignall, James


Owen, Major G.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Rose, Frank H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)



Scurr, John
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles




Edwards.


Third Resolution read a Second time

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Guardianship of Infants Bill): Sir Herbert Nield.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Summer Time Bill): Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [19th March.]

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

1. "That 102,675 officers, seamen, boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the sea service, together with 350 for the marine police, borne on the books of His Majesty's ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,040,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of wages, etc., of officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and civilians employed on fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,588,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants-in-aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,509,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move to leave out "£2,588,000," and to insert instead thereof "£2,587,900."
On this point, I think it is convenient for the House to consider the declaration made by the Government that it proposes to go on with Singapore. I understand from a speech delivered by a right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on this side of the House that there is a feeling in that quarter that the Labour Government was not quite so consistent in this matter as it ought to have been, and the claim was made by the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues are the only consistent people in the House of Commons. Consistency, I suppose, is a virtue, but it
always reminds me of the fig leaf which had to be worn by humanity when humanity became conscious of a great cause and of excessive nakedness. The consistency of the right hon. Gentleman who made that observation against us the other day is certainly not one of the most conspicuous of what, I hope, are his many virtues. But, consistent or not, the position of the Labour Government, and now the Labour Opposition, is perfectly clear and straightforward.
We came into office at a time when, before making our position clear to the House, it was impossible for us to examine all the documents that were presented to us and take into account all the considerations laid before us. We never regarded Singapore as a small matter. We always regarded it as one of the most critical steps the Home Government could take in the interests of the Empire, and it was because we took that very serious view of the significance of the step that we decided, and quite honestly confessed to the House that we decided, to suspend work at Singapore pending a final decision which would not precede but would follow an examination of the case which could be put up in favour of Singapore. We went through that examination, and the result is, so far as I am concerned, the attitude that I am taking to-day. If that is considered to be inconsistent I do not care. It is the only way in which a Government that is sensible of its responsibilities can carry on the business of this country.
What is the argument that is put up from the point of view of Imperial safety and Imperial necessity? Perhaps I ought to explain why I interrupted the First Lord of the Admiralty the other day when he was using very freely the word "Imperial." The whole of my interruption was a question as to whether South Africa was regarded by him as being within the Empire. There was apparently some resentment shown at the form of the question, but as a matter of fact it was a very sound observation. Hon. Members must remember that the Empire is not Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps I should also add Newfoundland, because the Newfoundland Government at the time we took office associated itself with Singapore. The other parts of the Empire did not. So that when we talk about the Empire we must re-
member that our Empire does not consist solely of those two very important communities in the South Pacific. When we consider what is the effect of Singapore upon the Empire as a whole, I think the conclusion that we come to is that it is going to weaken the Empire because it will increase the war-making impulses in the world. It may be that it we take the argument which was put up in that very quiet but remarkably well-informed speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) in the last Debate, he not being under the restraint of ever having been on the Front Bench, or of being on the Front Bench, said quite bluntly that Singapore is necessary as a naval base in order to maintain a white Australian policy. What does that mean? It means that he anticipates that because Australia will undoubtedly persist in its opposition to receiving Japanese immigrants, that political and racial policy will inevitably result in a military conflict between Australia and Japan If that is not his argument the whole of his case falls to the ground.
If that be so, it is obvious that this cause of a quarrel between Australia and Japan, and the preparations made to carry it to a successful conclusion, so far from increasing the security of the Empire, as a matter of fact is a special and an extra reason why the whole Empire is sooner or later going to be involved in a war. That may be necessary. It may be inevitable. But a great many people defend the Singaport venture on the ground that it is part of the steps that we have to take for the general security of the Empire. From that point of view, from the point of view of the risk the Empire is running because Australia is pursuing a white Australia policy, what is the best counteroffensive? Is Singapore the only one? Is that the only class of counteroffensive that is possible? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are being built up in connection with the League of Nations a large group of activities meant to take the whole of this intricate question of the immigration of Asiatics from the sphere where it is to be met by military preparations and handed over to the sphere where it is to
be met by legal decision. It cannot be settled with security to the Empire in any other way than that. The problem of the immigration of Asiatics into territories governed by whites, if allowed to be met, and to be foreshadowed, by preparations such as are suggested at Singapore, is going to impose inevitably an all-round challenge by certain races against certain other races. It is one of those beginnings in racial psychology which cannot possibly be ended until there is an engagement all along the line—the white races and the yellow races—the coloured races, whatever the colour may be. Surely it behoves every one of us who has been in office, every one who is in office, and every one who aspires to be in office, to use our brains and all the expediencies that we can devise to shunt that problem—just to push it over the plane of a military solution and get it on to the plane of a judicial solution in some shape or form.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the United States extended the prohibition of immigration not merely to coloured and balck labour, but to European labour, without fighting?

Mr. MacDONALD: The only explanation I think I need give to that question is this. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman would never suggest the fortification of some island on the Atlantic, say, midway towards America, for the purpose of fighting a European country on account of its emigration policy. That is all the claim I want to make. We have got a grievance. We may have an accumulation of grievances. I think we shall. I think the War has revolutionised the world altogether to a far greater extent than perhaps the most imaginative of us has yet understood, and one of the great problems that later generations of this century will have to consider, and consider in a practical way, is the problem of emigration and immigration. But there are certain dangers in that problem, and certain degrees in its danger, and I think those who have studied it most and have seen the countries mostly affected by it on both sides, both Japan on the one hand and Australia on the other, will agree with me if I lay down this proposition, that the most dangerous
of all the aspects of that problem is the possibility of a conflict between the white and the yellow races on pure racial lines, backed to a certain extent by economic evolution, but mainly on racial lines, such as was forecast by the late Professor Pearson in a book which is now forgotten, but which a few years ago was one of the most widely read books of that time. Therefore from my point of view the policy expressed in the building of Singapore is a policy which strengthens the military solution of this problem and weakens the judicial solution, upon which I base nearly all my practical hope, the development of the work of the League of Nations and its various supplementaries, economic emigration and so on. Let me remind the House that those of us who take that view have already won the first round in the fight. We know now perfectly well that if the international court had to decide whether a conflict between Japan and Australia arising out of the question of emigration was an exterior matter, an international matter from the point of view of Australia, or a purely domestic matter from the point of view of Australia, international law says that emigration is purely a domestic affair for the country that is responsible. That is the first round of the fight to be settled, and it has been settled on our side.
From the point of view of the Dominions, I do not take party resolutions or things of that kind. I am taking the Dominions, as it were, as a great collection of political problems, which, sooner or later, those who sit on the Front Bench opposite, to whatever party they belong, or whether they belong to this generation or the next generation, will have to face, and I hope and pray that they will successfully solve them. From the point of view of the problems that our Dominion Governments will present to our home Government, Singapore, so far from being a strength to our home Government, will be a cause of weakness.
Take the other argument, which was produced the other day, the question of trade routes. When I went through some of these papers a few months ago there was one conclusion that one could not resist, and it was the conclusion that it was our responsibility and
our duty to provide proper police supervision for these trade routes. But Singapore is not a police station. We must be very careful about that. We must not allow any misconception in regard to the argument about the trade routes—those elongated and complicated trade routes going round and concentrating in the Malay Straits and the narrow waters which join the Pacific and the Indian Oceans; that neck and channel through which this enormous trade must go, cast and west, in order to keep up the connection between the two hemispheres. We must not allow ourselves, and we must not allow those who are in favour of the Singapore Base, to put upon that undoubted fact a conclusion which it does not bear. If it is a police question, if Singapore Dockyard is going to be a sort of police headquarters, that is a different story.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: How do you define "police"?

Mr. MacDONALD: It is like "animal" and "vegetable." It is very difficult to define the border line, but you can tell the extremes quite easily. There is no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member is very remote from a vegetable. I could dogmatise on that, but you cannot dogmatise on the border line. The proposal that is being put up for Singapore is for the capital ship, not the cruiser, not the police cruiser, but the capital ship—

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: You have now defined your "police" force as being a cruiser force and not a "battleship" force.

Mr. MacDONALD: My hon. and gallant Friend must excuse me, because I am not sure what the evolution of the cruiser is going to be as a cruiser. I am not at all sure whether the cruiser in its evolution is going to remain a policeman or is going to become something like the policeman in certain Continental States, who is called a policeman but, as a matter of fact, is a soldier.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacDONALD: I prefer to cast my eyes abroad. It is much safer in this matter than casting our eyes near home. Therefore, if the request for the Singapore base is for a police headquarters,
there can be a good deal said for it. Even then it would require to be very carefully examined and scrutinised, for reasons which I will give. In that event, the argument against Singapore would not be, as I think, so absolutely on one side as is the argument against the proposition of regarding Singapore as a true naval base. That is what it really comes to. That is a contemplation of war. It is a contemplation of offence, and there is no ground whatever for it. [Interruption.] I would prefer not to be misled into other channels. If there is an argument, and I know there is an argument, that you cannot have a naval police force without a fleet in the ordinary sense, without a line of battleships somewhere in the neighbourhood, then that weakens the case for the police force as a separate idea, and consequently it compels us to judge Singapore as an impossible place for a police force but as a possible place for a big naval base. That opens up the whole argument that I am addressing to the House.
What is the position at the present time? You have no naval preparation that can reasonably make you come to the conclusion, or that can reasonably compel you to the conclusion, that war there is a possibility. There must be wide political movements to precede it, and those political movements will take much time to develop—the political conditions cannot be accomplished in a year or two—and before a reasonable prospect of war comes there will be so much preparation and so much preliminary movement that, if the worst were to come to the worst, there would be plenty of time for taking a move; whereas, taking the move now you precipitate all these things. You short-circuit all the chances of a, peaceful solution of the problems to which I have been referring, and you weaken, if not defeat—I do not use the latter word because we shall do our best to prevent a defeat—you undoubtedly weaken those pacific and judicial forces that are moving for a solution of the problem that you are making preparations to meet by naval and military means.
There are no preparations that justify you in going on out there. There is no threat there to justify you. You may say, as was remarked the other day, that nobody can misjudge us, that we are 3,000 miles away from this and 2,000 miles
away from that. Very well. If that is their security against Singapore, it is your security against that bottleneck, against that narrow channel for your trade routes. You will not be threatened there, I repeat, until great political movements have been made, and the very beginning of those movements have not yet shown themselves. You are going beyond requirements for trade protection. You are asking for a striking naval base. You can say it is defensive as long as you like, but we must remember that there are other people who judge us not always in accordance with the way that we judge ourselves. From the point of view of the Dominions, from the point of view of the Empire, this Singapore policy is a weakness, and from the point of view of trade it is absolutely unnecessary and is a menace, because it upsets the pacific evolution of forces and interests that, if they are allowed to evolve, will make this preparation quite unnecessary.
Take it from the point of view of its place, I do not know anything of the situation myself. I have only listened to argument, with what success I do not know. I have heard the case graphically put by experts. The naval expert is in duty bound to point out every weakness not only in the Malay Straits, but everywhere else, from the North Pole to the South Pole and from the rising sun to the setting sun, but he has no business to give us our policy. One of the things that I most profoundly regret is the sort of lack of cordial co-operation between some of the Services and what I call the politician. Some of the experts, knowing that we cannot command ships at sea, and cannot fire guns, and knowing that we are subject to pressure which they regard as being rather of a poor character, namely, public opinion and public interest, and so on, put the politician down as something, I think, morally inferior, certainly inferior from the point of view of practitude of service to the public and in the public interest, compared with those who have been trained in all the intricate work that a Navy, Army and Air Force require. Until the politicians and the Services understand each other sympathetically, and understand the function that one has to the other and strive to co-ordinate those two functions, neither the Services
nor the politicians will give to the State the service that the State ought to receive from both of them.
On pure paper, as a thing that you can see, Singapore is the place where a naval station should be placed, if we want one. That is on paper, but when you come to study it in other ways I am not at all sure that it is the place. I do not know, I have never been there—

Major PRICE: The right hon. Gentleman has altered his views since last year.

Mr. MacDONALD: I do not think the hon. Member was in the House when I explained.

Major PRICE: But I have read the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. MacDONALD: I have not altered my views, except that my last year's views were these, that we were exploring the position, and we did explore it and have come to our conclusions. What is the situation? I understand that whilst the point is suitable—I suppose this is where the hon. and gallant Member suggests that I have altered my views—while the point on the map is suitable, while the geographical position is suitable, the physiographical position is of much greater doubt. What are the conditions of hygiene? Are they good?

Major PRICE: They are.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am told that they are not. I have received assurances from gentlemen who have been out there, such as professional medical officers—

Mr. PENNY: I have been out there for 21 years.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps we can get the figures for comparison and the occupations of the men. I venture to say that the figures would not bear out that optimistic view. I am sure that the hon. Member lived with that puritanical rectitude which is a protection against all climates. I have no doubt that he reaped a wonderful harvest in robust health from his abstemiousness and other virtues. I saw the other day one of the most extraordinary spectacles that one can wish to see in the creation of a healthy area, out of practically swampy countries and disease-infested districts. I happened
the other day to be at Panama and at Colon, and there I saw the district between the sea and the upper edge of the Gatun Lake, which formerly was a miraculous mass of swamp and jungle, infested by yellow fever, malaria, and so on, and but where now you see villages and cantonments that remind you rather of the Golders Green model village more than anything else, only a little bit greener, and a little bit fresher. Yes, but look at the cost! The cost represents tens of millions, if not scores of millions of dollars. Has that been estimated? How far would the £10,000,000 or the £11,000,000, which the Government assure us is all that they will spend, go towards covering this expenditure? Of course, it could not cover it.
The position is not only very doubtful from the hygienic point of view, but from the military and strategic point of view, I am told that its value is of a most doubtful character. The Johore Peninsula bounds the Strait on the north. The island of Singapore hounds it on the south. I understand that the edge of Johore abounds in mangrove swamps and jungles that are practically in-penetrable, and that above these there are hills with bare tops which would be magnificent observation posts for an enemy unless they are occupied by us. As soon as we settle down on the shore of that narrow strait which divides Johore from Singapore, then we discover that, in order to make our defence of Singapore secure, we must get hold of a very large area on the mainland and fortify it, I dare say for the Air Force in particular and also for the military, and provide the necessary buildings, etc., because it was described to me by one who is intimately acquainted with both naval and military strategies as a perfect "sitter" for aeroplane attacks. I do not know quite what that expression means. I believe that it is a technical expression. Perhaps I could appeal to some of the Service Members to tell us what it is.
All this opens up a most extraordinary development of a military character quite apart from its effect as a naval base. You must have these defences on the mainland where they are better there than at Singapore Harbour, which is on the southern shore. You discover then that there are consequential defences to be
made. Most of that territory has to be acquired, as you cannot defend Singapore without it. And so on, year after year, until the 10 years are up and we have got our dock built and going we shall have Supplementary Estimates, not only for the naval base, but for increasing the area which is covered by the military defence scheme, and that £11,000,000 is going to be a mere flea-bite of the total cost. We are embarking upon an absolutely unknown account, and the account is to be of such a nature that when we have gone beyond a certain extent we are bound to go through with it whether we like it or not. It is not a businesslike proposition, and not a proposition to which this House, if it were free to express its views, would readily assent.
I alluded some minutes ago to the political effect. I return to that for a few moments. What is going to be the effect of this? It is here that my chief interest comes in. I am very much interested in the other sections of the matter with which I have been dealing, but I am much more interested in the development of the conflict, which I do not suppose I shall live to see, but which, unless the situation is very carefully handled, will certainly have to be fought out in the world. The position was very well expressed by my right hon. Friend the other day. We were honest, single-minded, and there is no thought of offence on our part. I accept that. Then I find him quoting the official statements of admirals, and I notice that Lord Balfour indulged in the same very mild recreation the other day. That is all nonsense. Everybody knows that that does not represent the ferment which is going on in the East. I have had sent to me, for instance, a resolution passed by the League of Nations Association of Japan, evidently not a militarist and not a nationalist body, but a body formed in Japan for the purpose of advancing the interest of the League of Nations, similar to our League of Nations Union, and similar to the very worthy body of Members of Parliament which meets once a fortnight upstairs to consider questions affecting the objects of the League. I will read the Resolution, though it is somewhat longer than the quotations which, as a rule, I care to make in my speeches. The Resolution says:
It is the opinion of the League of Nations Association of Japan that the
execution of the naval base plan at Singapore:

(1) May produce an unfavourable reaction on the traditional friendly relations between Japan and England
(2) May afford to the militarists in power the pretext for competitive armaments and materials for their propaganda It Is further of opinion that this plan is out of harmony with the spirit of the League and nullifies the effect reached by the Washington Conference. For this reason the League of Nations Association of Japan invitee the careful consideration of the important effect of the proposed naval base plan at Singapore."
There is very much more significance in a Resolution like that than in thousands of speeches delivered by admirals and other officials. Hon. Members know the ceremonial politeness, which is not altogether absent from our statements, but which is never absent from the statements made by those in the East who have dignified positions in the Admiralty. A Japanese admiral knows perfectly well that if he told the world that Singapore was a menace to them he would be lowering the dignity of his own country and casting reflections upon the efficiency of her navy. Everybody knows that that is so. Consequently in the ferment that is going on in the East at the moment—and no one can take up a Japanese paper without seeing it—that is a subject that is much talked about, and I have been assured that it is a subject which has been very much used by certain communistic propaganda bodies both in Malay and in Java, where there seems to be a very active and mischievous propaganda of Communism going on for spreading its influence all round that part of the world. I have no doubt that the effect of the Singapore proposals is to turn the mind of the East towards the military position and to make the East assume that this conflict, to which I have referred repeatedly, is going to happen and that they must be prepared for it. In a word we gain nothing in the East by building this fort and we are provoking a new enemy.
What is going to be Japan's reply? I do not care to go into these matters too much, but it is of tremendous interest and is exceedingly important. I gather more by the implications of the speech to which we listened last week, than by any definite statement which my right hon.
Friend made, that Japan's reply was to be looked for in naval activity. If hon. Members confine their attention, in trying to find out the state of mind of Japan as to what is required by this move on our part, to her naval programme I venture to suggest that they are on the wrong scent. The reply is the creation of a new political policy in the Far East of Asia. That is where the reply will come in. I do not like to say too much on that subject, but there is Russia engaged in certain action in Pekin. Russia is not waiting for anyone in China to consider the matter, or for the decisions of Ministers or anything like that. She is simply proceeding with her own policy. She has never consulted us; she has taken action absolutely on her own, the meaning of which I take it does not require anyone to look very deeply in order to find it.
That is one thing. Then there is China. There is the future of China, the future relation of the three countries, Japan, Russia and China. I do not believe for a moment that the future need worry us. I believe that we can maintain the most cordial friendship with Japan. I believe that no move that must be made in the Far East need be inimical to us. But in the meantime we must keep our heads, we must try to keep a very careful rein and a very steady hand. I have come to the conclusion that from that point of view the creation of a naval base at Singapore will upset many of our chances of success in the direction which I have indicated. There is still one other aspect and it is the last with which I shall deal. Do not let us come to some sort of conception like this: We are building at Singapore a dockyard for emergencies. All that we have to do with it is to keep it clean. We shall have a nucleus staff there, and the British Fleet, as hitherto, will be concentrated somewhere near home waters. It may have its manœuvres in the Mediterranean in the spring on account of good weather, but it will still be a British Fleet, not merely politically so but geographically, concentrated somewhere in the waters surrounding Great Britain, or very near to those waters, and Singapore will be a place of reserve, a sort of hospital, a place prepared for emergencies.
If any hon. Member is indulging in that easy view he is going to be very much mistaken. The building of Singapore is a tremendous and critical event in the evolution of British naval strategy and in the distribution of the British Fleet. We are going to create, we must create, we cannot help creating, if you take the necessary steps and produce this scheme as a completed whole—we must go on and create a Pacific Fleet, or what may be the first stage of an alternative. It may be that the First Lords of the Admiralty may come down and say, "Oh, that prophesy has not been fulfilled." But I will tell you what will be fufilled, if not straight away. We may find that Australia and New Zealand, instead of contributing to an Imperially controlled fleet, will create a fleet, a system of naval defence, supported by capital ships, which will be concentrated in Singapore, and leave us the other parts of the Imperial defence. That will certainly not last. It is a state of things that is unthinkable as a solution of the problem of Imperial naval defence—absolutely unthinkable. But we know how the unthinkable becomes the thinkable, and how an impossible situation is created in order to meet temporary difficulties, and then, as soon as it is created, it evolves itself into something that everybody at the beginning said they would not have agreed to, but which they accept as a fait accompli.
That is what is going to happen. But the final step will be the creation of a Pacific Fleet with its base on Singapore, with all the paraphernalia and expense, both capital expense and the expense of creation, and the expense of keeping it up, which I have indicated. The House cannot contemplate such a development without due consideration. If hon. Members were free, if they were in a position to sit around a table to hear evidence, if they had the power to examine, the power to criticise, and then finally the power to give effect to the conclusion to which they came, I venture to say that they would never accept the proposal that is now being made to start the creation of such a dockyard as Singapore is bound to become.
I want to put one or two questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I would like to have his answers. How many ships does he propose should go to Singapore? He really must tell us these
things. That is part and parcel of the scheme. He tells us, for instance, that they have now found that they can build this base for less money than they anticipated. What do they propose to build with the reduced sum? Will he tell us exactly? What does he propose to do with the sum? What is the programme, the scheme? For instance, does it include barracks for troops? Does it include barracks for an air force? Does it include railways that must be built there in order to connect depots with the harbour and floating dock and so on? Does it include the whole scheme of necessary naval development, or is it merely the building of the naval equipment which in itself would involve this supplementary expenditure? He ought to tell us exactly what he has in mind when he says that Singapore can be finished for less than £11,000,000, or whatever was the sum that he mentioned.
I want to make another reflection, with which I think the whole House will agree. It is surely most unwise, immediately after a great war, which tested the relative importance of arms, the relative kinds of arms within the service, which tested the relative importance of the Air Service to the Navy, and also the relative importance of submarines and capital battleships, cruisers and destroyers, and so on. Does my right hon. Friend mean to tell me that they have now made up their minds at the Admiralty finally as to what is the lesson of the War, not only for fighting in home waters, but for fighting so far removed from the base—even taking Australia as the base—a thousand miles away from the base, from which the main, the larger operations, will be directed? Have they come to final conclusions about that? Are they quite sure that our present state of knowledge of naval strategy, of naval building, of naval arms, justifies the Government in assuming that a great step like this, the building of a base of such critical military, naval and political importance, has been preceded by an exploration of our knowledge, and that in these circumstances he can say that we are perfectly safe, that this can be done, and that we can guarantee that this will be effective for use under circumstances when they arise to call for it?
I am afraid that I have detained the House at some length, but I feel very strongly and keenly about this proposal. I believe that it is not in accordance with the policy that will continue, for some time at any rate, to be the policy of hope for the British Empire. I believe that if you build Singapore, you will have to scrap the Washington ratios. You cannot carry out the Washington ratio if the capital ship is to remain of major importance in the naval arm, because the Washington ratio depends upon concentration, and that cannot be carried out under conditions of dissipation. It cannot be carried out, because the Washington ratio would require to be a Pacific ratio, not a Pacific plus Mediterranean or plus Atlantic ratio. If your ratio is against A, a Pacific power, and you are not only a Pacific power, but an Atlantic power, a Mediterranean power, the ratio evidently is upset.

Lieut. - Commander BURNEY: We always have been.

Mr. MacDONALD: It may be, but at present your Fleet is concentrated; the whole strategy is concentration. If you have, as it were, two fleets, at least two effective fleets, not merely a fleet based on Portsmouth, and a fleet based on Rosyth, or a fleet based on Scapa Flow, which really is one thing—a few miles between, quite insignificant—for all intents and purposes it is one base. If you are to have a fleet based on Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth on the one hand, and another based on Singapore, then you have to keep two fleets independently equipped, fleets that are prepared to see service at two minutes' notice without having any communication from any other quarter. The more that is thought over, the sounder it will be seen to be. If we are to dissipate our fleet, if our fleet is to be based not only on the Atlantic, but on the Pacific, all ratios must go, ratios agreed to by rival or supposedly rival Powers. This means an ever-increasing naval armament, an ever-increasing expenditure of the British taxpayers' money, an ever-increasing burden upon us, when we expected that these burdens would be lightened. These things mean not peace, not security, but inevitable war.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I confess that the speech to which we have just listened from
the right hon. Gentleman so tickles the imagination at certain points and so disappoints one at others that I should like to make a very short reply in regard to those matters which seem to me to be essential for the consideration of this problem. I was not surprised at an interjection which came from an hon. Friend of mine above the Gangway, in which some astonishment was expressed at the divergence between the view presented by the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion and that which he stated to the House last year when this subject was previously discussed. At that time the right hon. Gentleman made it very plain that if we were to have any base in the East, Singapore was the place to have it, and we were not treated to any of these vaticinations of evil as to what would happen to troops and sailors if we were to take up a permanent place at Singapore. In fact, all the information which the Government authorities in the past have had with regard to this place is that it is not at all an unhealthy situation for troops, and I think the appearance of two hon. Members who have spent long periods of service in this region is sufficient to convince the House that no very serious malady arises from service in that quarter of the globe. That, after all, is a very small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not myself think it is a small matter, but it was a small point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
There was another matter to which the right hon. Gentleman adverted. He quoted from a resolution passed by the League of Nations Union of Japan. I know nothing at all with regard to the size and importance of that body, nor what particular members were present when this resolution was passed, but even assuming that it was supported by a solid body of opinion I am not sure that we should pay very great attention to it. I think we should look at the circumstances. Japan, just now, is very busy protecting certain parts of her own coast at a far greater expense than that in which we are proposing to indulge at Signapore. What effect would it have on Japan if the League of Nations Union in this country were to pass a similar resolution to that which the right hon. Gentleman has read?
Going a little further I do not think, even if such a, resolution were passed, that it would embitter our relations with Japan if Japan did not immediately conform to what the resolution said. There was however one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which must have created sympathy in the breasts of all of us. He adverted to a theme upon which he often dwells with great fervour, eloquence and conviction. He expressed his view that the best way to decide all quarrels was through some judicial method rather than through the employment of force. What he argued was that the building of this fortified base at Singapore would have some inimical effect upon the realisation of that ideal and the attainment of peaceful methods for the decision of the quarrels of the world. I am sure every Member of the House agrees with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be far better to have decisions by some judicial process rather than by force. That is an object at which we all aim, but it is perfectly obvious that we live in a world where that ideal is very difficult to attain.

Mr. WALLHEAD: We make it so.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend will realise in a moment how difficult this matter is, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman his Leader already does. How do you put judicial decisions into effect? You only do it by force, and if you have not the force to put them into effect, believe me a great many of them would have no result at all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was the main instrument in passing Resolutions last year at Geneva, instituting a system for bringing about an avoidance of war through the activity of the League of Nations, and he is an ardent advocate, as no doubt we shall discover to-morrow, of the Protocol. The intention of that document was to compel peace, if it could be done. Could it be done by a Resolution of the League of Nations? It was perfectly obvious that that was a totally ineffective method, and what did the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues institute as a method of attaining peace? It was a method of force, and what was the instrument of force to be used? It was the British Navy? Yet his present attitude and that of his colleagues is to cripple the British Navy and make it absolutely immobile in one of the greatest oceans in the, world,
because, without Singapore, it is well known that the British Navy cannot operate in those far seas. It is in order that such power as we have may be effective in the Pacific, if it is necessary, that we desire the Singapore base, and for that reason alone.
Why should the fortification, or rather the refortifying of this base be regarded as provocative in any part of the world Let me remind the House of what its condition was. It has always been a base, so long as we have known it, for British forces. The only difficulty is that to-day it is no longer in an effective condition to take in ships of the class now being built. Is it going to be said that a foreign Power world take offence because we keep, in an up-to-date condition, a base which we have held for many generations? Al the Washington Conference when they were dealing with the delimitation of the zones to which certain Resolutions were to be applied, Singapore was deliberately excluded and it was made perfectly clear that the reason was because it was an old fortified base of the British Navy and we intended to go on and put it into a proper state of equipment. That has been made clear by Lord Balfour's revelations of what took place in Washington at that time. It is idle to say that the Japanese have any right to be provoked by our actions or that they did not anticipate that we shall finish this base in our own proper and good time. The right hon. Gentleman asks what is going to be the effect in Japan and in the Eastern and Southern seas. He anticipates a quarrel—to which I confess I am sorry he should give even the appearance of the likelihood of reality—taking place on certain lines between Australia and Japan.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? I was pursuing an argument—and I hope I was quite clear—which was put up last week by an hon. and gallant Gentleman on the benches opposite, and it is mere mischief to suggest that I said that such a quarrel ought to develop, or is going to develop.

Sir R. HORNE: I gladly withdraw my statement of what I understood was in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because I hope there are none of us in a state of mind in which we could even contemplate such an emergency. The right hon.
Gentleman based a somewhat elaborate argument upon this suggestion, but now that he says it was no part of what was in his mind, I need not go further into the matter. The point I was going to make can be equally well substantiated on another branch of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. "What is going to be the effect on Japan," he asks, "of the action which we are taking now?" He indicates a combination which would involve China and Russia and the possibility of Japan no longer wishing to remain in the state of alliance with us which she is in at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] She is an ally at the present time, and I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite will question that statement. Let us think for a moment of what the ordinary action of human nature would be in such a condition of things as the right hon. Gentleman contemplates. Do people want your support and your alliance more when you are strong or when you are weak? I venture to say that, if it were possible that Japan were reconsidering her alliances—and I hope she is not doing so, and will not do so—but if she were, by any chance, reconsidering her alliances, I am perfectly certain she would be far more impressed by a proposal from us if we were strong and in a position to be effective in those seas than she would be if we were weak and could not carry out our promises.
After all, and behind this argument, what appears to me most strongly is that we are bound, if we value our Imperial communications and the ties which we have with Australia and New Zealand, to put ourselves in a position to render to them effective aid should they require it. I hope they may not require it, but we must at least feel that they can be defended if their moment of need should come. For my part, I would rather not follow the right hon. Gentleman into some of the considerations which he has raised. I would prefer to base myself on the considered opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence and on the demand which Australia and New Zealand make upon us for the fortification of this base. I think we should be false to our trust in this House if we did not go on to complete the operations at Singapore which we have begun—we should be false to our trust by
rendering insecure our great Imperial communications and the trade routes upon which the welfare of this country depends.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the attitude of those who opposed these proposals was to cripple the British Navy, and it is frequently the genial habit of hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, when Navy Estimates are under discussion, to represent their opponents as being animated by some personal or intellectual bias against the Navy. It is true there is in this House a small band of professed and convinced pacifists led by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) who believe it is possible and desirable for us immediately and completely to disarm, but the true issue in these Debates is between those who take a wide view of the necessities of Imperial defence, embracing not only the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, but also other factors equally important from the standpoint of national defence, such, for instance, as our dire need of financial and economical recuperation, the necessity for the reduction of taxation if our exhausted economic and financial reserves are to be replenished and a margin for the expansion of our revenue in time of emergency is to be restored; who believe that the strength, vigour and vitality of a nation does not reside solely or mainly in its armed forces, but in the health, the education and the contentment of the people, and those, on the other hand, who believe that no money is wasted so long as it is spent in satisfying the demands of the Admiralty.
The First Lord presents Estimates to this House which provide for an increase in expenditure of nearly £5,000,000, and he proceeds to account for this increase. He says that £1,370,000 is accounted for by formal re-arrangements of the Estimates; that £1,500,000 more is due to uncontrollable causes, and under these two heads he accounts for more than half the increase, but I would say that the increase is £4,500,000 out of £60,500,000 of the whole Estimates. It is necessary for the First Lord not merely to explain these increases, but to explain why he has been unable to effect compensating economies in other directions. I will not refer on
the Vote under discussion to what those compensating economies might be—we shall have other opportunities of reverting to them—but the First Lord speaks of the "uncontrollable causes" of expenditure. What is the principal responsibility of First Lord to this House? Surely it is to control the expenditure of the money which we vote to His Majesty for the upkeep of his Navy, and a First Lord who comes down to this House and talks of uncontrollable expenditure stands before us self-condemned. There is this great expenditure on Singapore, and hon. Members say it is essential in order to maintain the strength of the Navy, but I would remind them that, just as they say, when social reform is under consideration, that there is no inexhaustible pool from which you can draw to finance your projects of social reform, so is that argument doubly true when you apply it to armaments, which, after all, give no return in national production or social contentment, and to the extent that uneconomical expenditure is permitted on armaments, a burden is placed on the taxpayer, a burden is placed on industry and a drain is created upon our financial and economic reserves, so that not only is our defensive strength not increased, but the defensive power of this country is actually weakened.
Efficiency can only be claimed if, for every pound of expenditure on armaments, we get 20s. worth of war power, and the First Lord of the Admiralty talks of having insisted upon economy so far as it is compatible with efficiency! I think that in using that phrase he reflected with alarming fidelity and clearness the mentality of the Admiralty. So far from efficiency and economy being incompatible and having to be balanced one against the other, the truth is, as Lord Fisher taught us 20 years ago, when he eradicated these ideas with his pitiless surgery from the Admiralty, that without economy, rigid economy, relentless economy, efficiency is inconceivable. No Vote is more in need of drastic pruning than the Vote now under discussion, and I think there is no direction in which the Lords of the Admiralty would have a better chance of emulating the achievements of Lord Fisher than in this particular Vote. Just as he greatly raised the ratio of war power to expenditure by scrapping obsolete vessels, small, feeble, inefficient, obsolete vessels, so
they, by scrapping these old, obsolete, unnecessary dockyards could effect huge economies in naval expenditure. I would call in support of my statement authorities which the House will recognise. There is, first of all, a book written by naval officers for naval opinion, to exalt naval needs and aspirations—"Brassey's Annual," which says:
In this respect the march of events points to Chatham in particular, and, to a less extent, to Portsmouth as being geographically obsolete. Chatham is already moribund as a first-class naval repair base, because it cannot take modern capital ships.
It refers to Chatham, Portsmouth, and Pembroke too. I will not quote the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), who touched on some of these points in a very able speech he made the other day with great authority, but I see the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) in his place, and, therefore, I will quote from a speech which he made on the Air Estimates about a fortnight ago, in which he said:
What possible use is there for the Admiralty keeping up out-of-date stations like Chatham and Sheerness? … What possible use is there in keeping up, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, these perfectly useless and out-of-date dockyards?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1925; Col. 1610, Vol. 181.]
Fortified by these high authorities, I say that for the expenditure of £1 on these dockyards we are not getting 10s. worth of war power, and, therefore, hon. Members who are conscious of the right and duty of this House to insist upon economy, upon the scrapping of outworn, out-of-date, inefficient dockyards, must give us their support in the Division Lobby to night in the interest's of the taxpayers, in the interests of the efficiency of our national defence, in the interests of the Navy itself—because to stick to obsolete, out-of-date methods is a symptom of decay—and discharge by their votes those functions of scrutiny, criticism, and veto, which the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Cabinet have so lamentably failed to perform. If the tin-imaginative conservatism of the Admiralty is shown in their maintenance, in times of grave financial stringency, of these out-of-date and unnecessary dockyards, it is shown no less in their
attempting to put into operation these generation-old schemes for the fortification of Singapore, and to do so in a time of profound peace.
Let me say at once, in reply to what fell from the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), that it is no part of my argument that it is contrary to the provisions of the Washington Treaty that we should fortify Singapore. To say that the Japanese failed to realise that the provisions of that Agreement left us at perfect liberty to fortify Singapore and to enlarge the dockyard which we have long maintained there so as to enable it to keep pace with the growth of our largest warships, does little credit to the intelligence of the highly-skilled naval experts who accompanied the Japanese delegation to Washington. It is, therefore, not our right to construct this naval base, but its utility, its expediency, and its timeliness that I assail. The First Lord of the Admiralty last week fenced with his questioners when they asked him against whom this protection was needed, but obviously there is only one navy of any size and strength in those waters, and that is the navy of Japan, a country that has been united in alliance with us in war. It is not, with all due respect to the right hon. Member for Hillhead, united in alliance with us now, but it is united by close treaty relations and by the bonds of mutual interest, mutual friendship, and mutual respect, but separated from us, and from every great Dominion of the Crown, by thousands of miles of ocean.
The First Lord himself the other day referred to the great distance which separates Plymouth from New York, and he said how absurd it would be to regard Plymouth as a menace to New York. Indeed, he referred to the Noble Lady who sits for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), and asked her whether she had ever heard that in New York Plymouth was regarded as a menace. It was rather curious to put the question that way. I should have thought he would have asked the Noble Lady what view was taken of New York in Plymouth, rather than what view was taken of Plymouth in New York. He rightly derided the idea, but by the same token and by the same geographical measurement, what base is there in Japan or belonging to any other naval Power
in the Pacific that could possibly be regarded as a menace to Australia or New Zealand? Singapore, after all, might be a convenience in peace time, but in war does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contemplate that the Admiralty would ever consent to the dispersion of our Fleet which would be involved by sending a Fleet to Singapore? I agree with General Smuts, who, in a telegram or memorandum which he addressed to His Majesty's Government last year, declared that conflagration in Europe would probably synchronise with contention in the Pacific, and that it was out of the question to suppose that the British Admiralty would be able to send the British Fleet, or a large part of it, to Singapore.
What will the cost be? The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that the cost will be £11,000,000, but that leaves out of account all the land defences and air defences that would be required, the protection of the lines of communication, the accommodation at Aden and Colombo, the additional stores that will have to be provided, the oil that must be provided, and the cruisers for protecting the lines of communication. As I shall submit to the House in a few moments, if it be desired to afford protection, at any rate in time of war, to Australia and to New Zealand, advanced bases in the East Indies will certainly be necessary—of course, they cannot be provided in the meantime, because it would be contrary to the provisions of the Washington Agreement—hut even then will the insatiable appetite of the Lords of the Admiralty be appeased? Here again I would call into evidence this hook, which, as I have said, reflects the highest and most expert naval opinion, and is written to voice the needs and aspirations of the Navy, and this is what is said on this question in "Brassey's Naval Annual":
Bases, adequately equipped and defended, are needed East, West, and Centre. That 'Centre' is no longer in this country, but in the 'middle sea'—the Mediterranean. But the 'East' and 'West' are as important.
It goes on to argue in favour of Singapore, and in the same paragraph says:
Also for the same reason our main fleet is unable to be based on either side of Canada, the Bermudas, or West Indies. The British Empire and the Dominions must
remember that a naval base cannot be built in a day; and that in those areas of the British Empire and its Dominions where there is no base the main fleet of the British Navy will be quite inactive.
He who sups with the Lords of the Admiralty requires a long purse! The First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech in the country last Saturday, and he said that those who are against Singapore are against the Navy and should show themselves in their true colours. The First Lord, I know, is accustomed to make use of this style of oratory. I think he said the policy of the Conservative party was defined as "Truth, the King, and the Ten Commandments," and no doubt lie would think we were not sailing under our true colours unless we properly denounced those ideals and institutions, but is he in favour of this base in the West, the base at Bermuda? After we have satisfied him at Singapore, are we to have a base there, too? If he answers "Yes," we shall know what to expect from his administration, but if the answer is "No," I would point out that he is himself in a glass house, and that he will have to be careful of the accuracy of the aim of his lethal oratory. This is what the full policy of the Government means, though since it was expounded with so much eloquence and experience by the present Colonial Secretary in the last two Parliaments, they have mixed a little water with their wine.
6.0 P.M.
Caution seems to be their slogan now. It was not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto at the last Election. Now the First Lord of the Admiralty points out that this year no expenditure will be required there. But if you sanction it this year, you will set in motion a sequence of events, and you will be told next year, and the year after, that these expenses are uncontrollable expenses, and the cause will be the vote you give to-night. He says it will only he £750,000 for the next three years, and then the whole thing can be reconsidered, when we are getting nearer to the next General Election. But what different language is this from that which was used by the present Colonial Secretary when he was First Lord of the Admiralty! They have lost the courage of their convictions; indeed plainly they have lost any conviction that this base is
an immediate and inescapable necessity. If, therefore, you give way to these demands, you will be placing upon the back of the British taxpayers a burden the weight of which is incalculable, which will be felt not this year, but next year, and thereafter increasingly on account of a scheme which is obviously ill-digested, which is constantly subject to alteration and adjustment, and which is of extremely doubtful utility even in contingencies which are now happily remote, but which the mere launching of this scheme might go far to invest with reality.
But there is one aspect of this question which I regard as of supreme importance, and that is the safety of Australia and New Zealand. It would be disastrous if we in this country were to take a narrow view of the responsibilities of Imperial defence, and in this connection I regard the references of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Debate last week as most unfortunate. Speaking of the tour of the Special Service Squadron round the Dominions, he said:
Our Dominions realise what a heavy burden the Mother Country is bearing in this respect, and to show that as they grow and increase in prosperity, they are prepared, and will be prepared, to take upon themselves some share or larger share of the Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March; col. 2517, Vol. 181.]
I think those words, and especially the use of the phrase "Our Dominions," which occurs more than once in the carefully prepared speech of the right hon. Gentleman, displays a lamentably antiquated conception of Imperial relations. Surely the true conception is that we all have an equal concern in a common duty, and the burden of Imperial defence, and that, just as Australia and New Zealand came and fought alongside us in the Great War, as equal partners in a common heritage, grudging neither blood nor treasure, so we can never be unmindful of the necessities of their existence. We all have friends and kinsmen there, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) pointed out in his speech last week, the greater part of the population in those countries comes from the towns and villages which we represent in this House, and if ever they were the victims of aggression, they would have a right to call upon us for the same whole-
hearted support as they gave us during the War.
But when we approach the subject from this standpoint, the first question which has to be answered is: Would a base at Singapore give those Dominions any protection at all? Opinion there is divided, as is opinion here. In the first place, it is, at least, doubtful whether we should ever be able to send a fleet there if, as General Smuts pointed out, "complications in Europe happen to synchronise with contention in the Pacific." We know how, in the last War, any leader of military forces insisted on the concentration of the maximum of his forces at one point. But if we did send a fleet there, that fleet would still be from Australia two-thirds of the distance that Plymouth is from New York. Indeed, the present Colonial Secretary, referring to the well-known strategical axiom that the effective range of a fleet from its base is 1,500 miles, said in this House, last July:
To say Singapore dominates the Pacific is absurd.… 1,500 miles' radius into the Pacific from Singapore does not get within 1,500 miles of Japan."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1924; col. 2303, Vol. 176.]
No, but you would still be short by hundreds of miles of Australia, and hundreds of miles short of the direct line between Australia and Japan! As the present Colonial Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty have reminded us, the fortification of Singapore has long been a dream of the Admiralty, and the defence of Australia and New Zealand to them have been only secondary considerations. To my mind, it is the most important object of our strategy in the Pacific. The only other defensive object is the defence of our trade routes, but the most efficient way of effecting that would be to divert the trade round the south of Australia. There are other methods besides; but the best protection of Australia is its great distance from any conceivable hostile base, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out. In any case, it is a fairly obvious truism, which is amply illustrated by the speech of the Colonial Secretary, that a distance of 2,000 miles from the base it is proposed to construct would place out of the question any effective protection of Australia. If Australia is threatened by an enemy, it will require a shield held over her heart,
and not one 2,000 miles away to a flank. The true protection, if it wants a great fortified naval base, should be in Sydney. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) to refer us to the doctrines of Mahon; but ill this respect there is growing up an important school of thought which believes that, for defensive purposes, adequate defence can be given by a proper system of observation and protection by aircraft and small surface craft. That is the doctrine on which the great Navy of France is proceeding at the present time, and Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, said last summer:
Australia should, I think, concentrate on an efficient fleet of relatively small ships to repel invasion.
The First Lord of the Admiralty said last week that the Australians were devoting money intended for Singapore to the building of cruisers, and an hon. Member interjected:
They thought they were of much more use.
The First Lord replied:
Perhaps they are. Both are very useful.
The taxpayers of this country will want the First Lord of the Admiralty to clear his mind of any doubt on that point, before he commits us to any great expenditure on Singapore. The greatest experts on either side of the House tell us that our defence is, to a large extent, costly and inefficient, because there is not adequate co-ordination of the fighting services and fuller co-operation between the fighting staffs. Yet, when questions are addressed to the First Lord—not vexatious, tricky questions, but plain, simple questions—inquiring into the relations between the Admiralty and the Air Force, he rounds upon his questioners, and accuses them of trying to goad him into saying something which might be offensive to another Department. Why he should feel any such temptation passes my comprehension, if, as he tells us, relations between these two Departments are perfectly friendly. But. surely, on this question of the strategical defence of Australia and New Zealand, there is ample scope for the free, unhampered co-operation of the two fighting services, the Navy and the Air Service. So far, however, we
have only had reports on this question from admirals and soldiers, who have visited these Dominions independently. On this problem of the defence of Australia and New Zealand I should like to see the report of an authoritative and combined Air Force and Naval Commission. In the meantime, having regard to the strategical axiom that the effective radius of a fleet is 1,500 miles from its base, I dispute the relevance of this scheme. The First Lord, speaking last week, said:
One glance at the map shows Singapore is the very centre and pivot of our scattered units of Empire in the East—India, Australia, New Zealand, the Straits Settlements and Ceylon, all within a comparatively small ambit.
No part of the coast of India is within 1,500 miles of Singapore. The nearest coast of Australia is 2,000 miles. No part of the direct line from Japan to Australia is within 1,500 miles, and New Zealand is 6,000 miles. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says they are all within a comparatively small ambit of Singapore.
I wish to say one word on the actual dangers which the scheme presents to the peace of this country and of the world. The First Lord assured us it is almost impossible for him to contemplate the danger of a rupture of relations between ourselves and Japan, while we all agree it is impossible, it is unthinkable, that there should be war between ourselves and our kinsmen of the United States of America, that great pacific, prosperous democracy. But there is another danger, the possibility of which cannot be ignored, that of a war between Japan and the United States of America. It is that very contingency in which the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) finds a strong argument in favour of the Singapore base. Speaking in the House of Commons, on 1st May, 1923, the hon. and gallant Member said:
Singapore may be of very great assistance to the United States in defending the Philippines, as we are certain to be on the side of the United States.
We on this side think it the greatest argument against Singapore, and I believe a great many Members on the other side would agree with us. I do not want to press the point, but when an hon. and gallant
Member, who speaks with such exceptional authority on this question, and is, besides, a publicist of international repute, puts forward in favour of Singapore an argument like that, it is impossible for the Japanese people to regard it as a domestic concern and purely defensive. I would, therefore, say I regard it as one of the strongest arguments against Singapore. I agree with his argument to this extent: that there would be a danger, if this base were constructed, that it might act as a magnet to draw us reluctantly into hostilities. Let me, in conclusion, refer to the important speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Sir Allan Burgoyne), who said that it was high time that our armaments were devised according to our needs and not according to the susceptibilities of other nations. Ah, yes, there is the vicious circle! It is precisely the susceptibilities of other nations which condition their armaments, and it is, therefore, those susceptibilities that set the standard of our needs. Those susceptibilities of the nations are the culture in which are grown the poisonous germs of armaments and war. If there were no susceptibilities, or if those susceptibilities, by conference and by a steadfast pursuit of peaceful aims, could be allayed, there would be no armaments, and there would be no war. There would be instead security, such as the world has never known, and such as no armaments can confer.

Mr. PENNY: The speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) when boiled down appeared to me to amount to another "wait-and-see" policy. I think, however, the House is to be congratulated that the new Members, who have some knowledge of Singapore and that part of the East, have all spoken in favour of the Government going on with their policy. The right hen. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) made the unique and astounding claim on Thursday that his party was the only party who had been consistent in this matter. He stated that he was no believer in the necessity of Singapore or as to its efficiency, and he contended the base was quite unnecessary. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would recall June, 1921, he would be aware that the Cabinet of which he was a member then
gave its official sanction and approval to the Singapore base. The right hon. Gentleman also stated it would be a provocative factor. I would ask him whether we are going to spend £60,000,000 on the Navy, and then paralyse that arm, which is so necessary in those Eastern waters. One might just as well say that a police force for home is a provocative force, because it is out to prevent the activities of evil-doers. You might as well say to the members of your police force at home, "You are to stand in one place, and never cover your beat," as to restrict the mobility of the Navy in regard to Singapore.
I maintain that if we are to have a Navy, we must have an efficient and a mobile Navy, so that it could do everything required of it in these waters. As regards provocation to Japan, Baron Hayashi has definitely stated that Japan does not look upon Singapore as being anything in the nature of provocation, and also we have Earl Balfour telling us that Singapore was deliberately left out of the agreement at Washington, because it might be wanted as a base for Empire defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is just as inconsistent as his colleagues. He warmly greeted this plan when it was first brought forward by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He acclaimed it as being the thing for which he had worked all along. Yet, since that time, he has practically boxed the compass, and now states that it is absolutely useless. He seems also not to be quite aware of what the position is out there. He said that the whole island suffers from overcrowding, and that housing conditions are appalling. Statements like that give a very false impression of the true position. You might make the same statement in respect to the Isle of Wight if you took the town of Ventnor, and drew the conclusion that the whole of the island was overcrowded. There is undoubtedly a certain amount of overcrowding in the city of Singapore, but on the site generously given by the Straits Settlement Government there is plenty of room for all the housing accommodation required. Another gentleman, who was once a Member of the party opposite, is also inconsistent. I refer to the ex-Member for Westbury (Mr. C. W. Darbi-
shire). He told us that the place was very enervating and demoralising, but when he was not re-elected to this House, he with his wife immediately went out to Singapore, and at the present time is residing there. The whole policy of the party opposite is not one of consistency, but of procrastination, and that is the reason why they are in the impotent position in which they find themselves to-day.
It is, I think, our bounden duty to maintain and to strengthen every link in the chain of Imperial defence. There is no Member on this side of the House who would spend one penny on any aggressive policy at the present time to add to the great burden of debt that is pressing on this country owing to the War. There is nobody who wants war. We see the maimed men who are walking the streets to-day as the result of the Great War. Everything we see to-day must make us avoid, so far as possible, war in the future. I say that, by having a strong, mobile fleet, and a base whereby that fleet can operate from Singapore, we are providing something which will be the greatest factor for peace in the future. Our Navy has always stood as an emblem of our policy of peace, and has always acted in that direction. We have also to remember that we are dependent absolutely for our food on outside sources. We must protect our great shipping and trade routes for our food supplies. Then, as regards the Dominions and the Dependencies, are we to take the opinion of men like Mr. Bruce, or are we to take the opinion of irresponsible men like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull? Mr. Bruce knows what he is talking about, and he has great responsibility, but the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull has none. The Dominions look to us, and they are prepared to support the scheme financially. The time will come when we shall have to consider whether we, the mother country, are going to do our duty and defend them if we can. We know that they had a nasty slap in the face from the Socialist Government over Imperial Preference, when we had practically made them a promise in regard to that matter, but the Socialist Government came into power and turned it all down. While they were shutting the door in their face,
they were opening the door to Soviet Russia. Is that the way to establish friendship between the mother country and the Dominions? They, certainly, should be supported, for they are ready to give us financial aid towards the cost of the base. New Zealand has already voted £100,000, Australia is going to do more, and Hong Kong has, contributed £250,000, while, as I have stated, the Straits Settlement Government has given a site.
Therefore, I think it is up to us to show that we have really realised our great responsibility. I should like to see international disarmament brought about on the land, the sea and in the air. Everybody in this House would like to see it, but I should like to know why we are always waiting on America. Cannot we take a lead in this matter? We know very well that during the War America did not allow idealism to stand in the way of material progress. It is well known what reply was given to the question why the Americans were called "doughboys." The answer was, "Because they were (k)needed in 1914, and did not rise till 1917." Therefore, I say it is up to us to take the lead in the question of international disarmament.
The question of a garrison at Singapore was referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness. We want a certain number of men, and have always had a garrison at Singapore, for which the Colony makes a military contribution. But it would be interesting to know how many people in this House or outside know where Singapore is. It reminds me of something that happened when I was talking lately to a friend about Burmah. "Why," he asked, "do you call it Burmah: my brother always called it Bermuda?"

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am perfectly aware that there is a garrison there. The argument I was submitting to the House was that if this scheme goes on, we shall require a far bigger garrison than is there now and far more amply provided with artillery and modern weapons of war.

Mr. PENNY: I do not consider that a much larger garrison would be required at Singapore, because there is an excellent volunteer force there which was mobilised during the late War. There has not been, let me add, a great deal of
information given in this House, and in the country, regarding the rising in Kelantan and the mutiny in Singapore during the Great War. The volunteers then did splendid work. They quelled the mutiny which took place, and did garrison duties, in addition to their commercial vocation, thus allowing the regular troops to be removed. H.M.S. "Cadmus" had to be recalled by wireless to take part in the work. Although these men were not even allowed a medal for their services they are still ready to do their share in protecting our Empire if ever called upon. The General Officer Commanding told these men that they were doing their duty there just as much as the men in the front line trenches in France. The whole object of that rising was to release the Germans from the internment camp, and the young fellows who were guarding it were riddled with bullets. The same thing may happen again, for the same propaganda that brought about this incident would bring about another.
Employers in Singapore would, I am sure, if the Government approached them, be only too ready to assist in any universal system for training volunteers amongst their employés who could be usefully employed in the event of any internal rising fomented by extremists. It has also been said that Singapore was a very unhealthy place, but you do not go anywhere in the tropics really for the sake of your health, At the same time, Singapore, compared with other tropical places, is an extremely healthy place, for when the men went out to garrison Blaxam Mati, Fort Canning and Tanglin the women, the wives of the regulars, followed, and were quite agreeable to go to any of the places where the men went. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested that there was no need of fear in view of the friendliness of our relations with Japan at the present time. But, there has always been an extremist element in every Government in every country. There is no doubt about it the extremist element often gains the upper hand. We cannot forget what happened in connection with the Socialist party, when we saw the Government absolutely overthrown by a few back benchers, and that not so very many months ago. The same may happen in the East. There are many there who are
anti-British. Some of the Japanese newspapers were suppressed during the War because of their scurrilous attacks upon Britain. We may say, and believe, that what we are doing is not against Japan, but it is no use shutting our eyes. We must face facts. There are many things which make it imperative upon us that we should be true to our principles as trustees of this great Empire and that we ought to be prepared for every contingency. We have heard also about the strategical positions surrounding Singapore. We know of these strategical positions and how they are held at the present time. Upon the big Dutch islands in the South, Bantang and Batam, there is a large number of Japanese, and Penggerang, the highest point to the East on the Johore mainland, was used by the Japanese during the late War as a signalling station. These were the strategic points, and I could give hon. Members other vital points right throughout the islands where you would find the Japanese.
I do not want to enter too much into that question on the Floor of the House, but if hon. Gentlemen wish to know absolute details and facts as regards the position of the Japanese out there, I will be only too pleased to have a talk with them, and let them know the position. In regard to the construction of any new vessels that may be required for service out there, I hope the authorities will do all they can to see that the accommodation for the men is properly ventilated, because therein lies the danger of ill-health to our men in those parts. During the wet season, the weather there is very humid, and a kind of fungus comes out in two or three days and covers everything if the place is not properly ventilated; it is then that men get stricken down.
To conclude, I say with all conviction that we would be neglecting our duty if we did not tackle this question properly, if we did not provide a base so that our Fleet could be mobile in those waters, and I urge the Government to go on and realise the great obligation they have to the nation in this respect.

Colonel APPLIN: I crave the indulgence from this House to perform a duty which, I believe, I can perform only once in a lifetime, unless I have the misfortune to be superannuated to another
place. I wish to, speak on the question of the Singapore base, because I have noticed that so many hon. Members who have spoken on the subject are quite unacquainted with Singapore itself and the surrounding seas. I had the honour of serving my country out there for a great many years. I have sailed the seven seas. I have been through the Straits of Sunda, and I have been to Hong Kong, Borneo and Macassar, where the oil comes from. There is one small point I do not think the House is aware of, and that is that oil, which maketh the face of man to shine at Macassar, exists, in another form, only a short distance from Singapore, at Maura, in Borneo, where the finest oilfields in the world exist, absolutely on the spot, waiting for our base and our fleet at Singapore. I would like to remind the House that we owe Singapore to Sir Stamford Raffles, a man who, with great vision, saw the strategic possibility of Singapore. Gazing into the future, as some of our great men of the past have done, he saw what we might require to-day, and he sent home and asked that Singapore might be taken and annexed to Great Britain. Canning was then, I believe, President of the Board of Control, and it was sanctioned, but it was sanctioned in such a way that they would allow no garrison to go there, and the fag was hauled down, and it was abandoned again till, I believe, 1826. In 1826 Fort Canning, named after Canning, was built.
What I want hon. Members to understand is that we have always had a fort at Singapore; we have always had dockyards there. Thirty years ago, when I first sailed into Singapore, there were great docks there. British cruisers from the China Fleet have always gone there. Therefore, it will be seen that they are not creating a new base, but what we propose to do is to bring our base up to date. There is a Japanese proverb which says:
A man may stand still in a flowing stream, but he cannot stand still in the world of men.
We cannot stand still in the world of men; we must go ahead. In this case we are not advancing a base into the Pacific; we are doing precisely the reverse. Owing to Article 19 of the Washington Convention, we actually abandoned our base for the China Fleet, so far as modern
works are concerned, for we are abandoning Hong Kong as an up-to-date base, and are withdrawing our base to Singapore, which is beyond the 110 degree of longitude.
I wish to emphasise a point which the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to when dealing with the strategic position at Singapore. He did not seem to realise, as perhaps it would be difficult to realise by just glancing at a map, that Singapore lies actually on the flank, on the strategic flank, of a line drawn between Japan and Australia. And it is for that reason that the Australians are very anxious we should have a base there, because a base on that strategic flank would be the most perfect way of preventing any attack from the North. We will not talk of Japan; there are other countries besides Japan. China, with its 400,000,000 people awaiting development, seems to have been entirely ignored—China, that great sleeping giant which, when it does awaken, will develop 400,000,000 of the finest workmen the world has ever seen. They will be workmen who have every material at command for making the goods of modern civilization, and they have a skill equal to that of any British workmen I have ever seen. There is no one more skilful than the Chinese worker, as hon. Members will see for themselves if they examine his products. They are also the finest fighters in the world. The Chinese make the finest soldiers, and there is no reason why they should not make the finest sailors. Singapore is on the strategic flank for the protection of Australia and New Zealand, and ought we not to listen to the voice of those who have served us so well in the Great War? What does our great poet, Shakespeare, say:
The friends thou host, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledged comrade.
We are rather apt to look into the eagle's nest, and, seeing the beak of the new-hatched, unfledged bird, imagine that it is an eagle, whereas it is nothing more than a vulture, and wherever there is war and slaughter, wherever there are wounded and dying, there is the vulture, fattening on them for his life. That is what we want to avoid. Let us look to
our friends. They have asked us to make this base at Singapore, or, rather, to bring it up to date, for their protection.
Not only will it protect them, but it will do something more, for it will be one of the finest protections we could devise for India. At Singapore we only have to turn about, and we are facing India from the south, and we should be in a position to relieve India instantly in the event of any disturbance out there. Singapore is an island. In geography books an island is described as land surrounded by water. I am afraid there are some hon. Members of this House whose minds are rather of an insular type, that is to say, there is a fixed idea surrounded by a sea of prejudice. May I beg them to leave that island of a fixed idea and to sail across that sea of prejudice to the harbour of reason, even if they have to go into dock at Singapore for repair on the way.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) state that he had been to Colon, but had not been to Singapore. It is a pity he did not see Singapore instead of Colon, and then perhaps he would have put a full stop before he made the statement he did. I think we ought to look at this question from the Imperial point of view and not from the political, and if we do we must see that bringing Singapore up-to-date would undoubtedly be one of the most friendly acts we could do for the United States of America. The United States are in grave danger in the Philippines, because they are such an immense distance from their base. Manila is in an impossible position for defence from the north. Their nearest base is Guam, which is not fortified, and their nearest big base of any kind is Hawaii, which is 4,000 or 5,000 miles away. It would be a friendly act to America to build our dockyard and bring it up to date, because it would ensure peace in that ocean whose name means peace—the Pacific Ocean.
I believe that if we had the base at Singapore we should ensure the peace of the world in that part of the world for another hundred years. I believe if the League of Nations were asked whether they would wish us to have the base or not, the answer would be in the affirmative, because that is the one place in the world where League of Nations ideals do not run. One is surrounded there by
Orientals, and the only idea of power the Oriental has is power that is visible. He has no idea or thought of power which is invisible. One may say that Great Britain is a great power, or that America is a great power, but if he does not see that power before his eyes he will not believe it.
Perhaps the most important thing in connection with this base is the fact that we have that vast population of 400,000,000 in China. Only the other day an hon. Member showed me a letter from a gentleman in Shanghai in which he said he had seen one of the Chinese armies enter Shanghai, and was surprised to see white units from Russia, and to find that many of the officers of the Chinese regiments were Russian, and had Russian non-commissioned officers. The discipline of that army, he said, was superb. Some looting occurred in Shanghai, and immediately the looters were shot and quartered, and their quarters carried through the streets of Shanghai as a warning to others. Those who run may read.
There is Singapore as a base in that wonderful strategic position, forming a flank, a fire station, surely, to contain our fire-engines to put out the conflagration should it occur. If anything can make for peace in the East, believe me it is a strong naval base at Singapore. My party has always stood for peace, and I do not think I can conclude a maiden speech better than by quoting the words of one of our great leaders in the past. I believe that Singapore will give us that great ideal of his, "Peace with honour."

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I am quite sure the House will desire to congratulate the last speaker on the maiden speech he has host delivered with such great felicity, and I assure him that we wish that we may hear from him in the future. He has referred to the words of a great leader of the Conservative party, and I want to refer to the words of another leader, whose leadership was not perhaps so fully appreciated by the Conservative party as by some of the other parties. At a time when the Navy Estimates were little more than one-fifth what they are to-day, the father of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:
Foreign policy and free expenditure upon armaments act and react upon one another. A wise foreign policy will extri-
cate England from continental struggles, and keep her outside, German, Russian, French, or Austrian disputes. I have for some time perceived a tendency in the Government attitude to pursue a different line of action, which I have not been able to modify or check. This tendency is certain to be accentuated if large Estimates are presented to and voted by Parliament. The possession of a very sharp sword offers a temptation, which becomes irresistible, to demonstrate the efficiency of the weapon in a practical manner. I remember the vulnerable and scattered character of the Empire, the universality of our commerce, the peaceful tendencies of out democratic electorate, hard times, the pressure of competition, and the high taxation now imposed, and with those factors vividly before me I decline to be a party to encouraging the military and militant mood of the War Office and the Admiralty to join in the high and desperate stakes which other nations seem forced to risk.
The position is no less serious to-day than that to which the late Lord Randolph Churchill referred when he made that speech. The question of housing at Singapore has been referred to, and in this connection I should like to quote from the report issued in 1905 in regard to the death-rate in which it was pointed out that one-fifth of the population was permanently on the sick list, and that much of the death and sickness was preventable. When a question was put to the Colonial Secretary the other day as to what has been done to improve matters he declared that there was no information at the Colonial Office to say that anything had been done in this respect.
I would also like to refer to the question of the death-rate there. Hon. Members opposite have been speaking of Singapore as though it were something in the nature of a health resort. May I point out that according to the report of the Singapore municipal health officer, the infantile mortality at Singapore in 1922 showed that out of every 1,000 births, 200 died within the first year of life. In the year 1923 we find that whilst in this country the deaths under nine years of age were 19.2 per cent. of the total deaths, in Singapore the figures for those under 10 years of age were 33 per cent. of deaths, and whilst between the ages of 25 and 44 in this country the percentage was 11.5 per cent. of the total deaths, at Singapore between the ages of 25 and 45 the deaths amounted to 30 per cent. of the total deaths.
With regard to housing, in 1918 there was a housing Commission in Singapore, and in summarising their conclusions we find:
Much of the present difficulty is due to the failure of the European firms to house their assistants … Practically nothing has been done by the Government, the Municipality or the Harbour Board to provide for their clerical staffs … The Government, the Municipality and the Harbour Board have between them an enormous number of labourers whom they do not attempt to house.
Now we are going to employ labourers to carry out the proposed works at Singapore, and I think we ought to seriously consider the health of the native population, because it has been pointed out in the "Straits Times" that
It must be realised that the future importance of the colony depends upon the manhood, and the effort that is made to raise the standard of health.
It is quite true that the defence of Singapore is no new question, because we have been at it for 40 years, more or less. As far back as 1884, the "Times," "St. James Gazette" and "Nineteenth Century" were demanding efficient fortifications and later an adequate naval base at Singapore, but surely after we have had a war which was intended to end war, we ought to consider why there is this renewal of anxiety. I would like to ask how soon after we have dealt with Singapore the naval base there will be a demand for further fortifications. A book has been published entitled, "One hundred years of Singapore," and the editor of the "Straits Times," at the end of the book, answering a question about the future of the Singapore base and its possibility of becoming a great naval base, says:
Tell me how the League of Nations will flourish; how China will break the fetters of Manchuism; how Japan will profit by great lessons from the West, and I will answer that question.
The "Straits Times" has consistently advocated additional defences, but here it is clearly suggested that this is a question rather for the League of Nations than one to be dealt with in other ways. The "Straits Times" points out that even before the War was over a bevy of admirals from the China and Australia stations and elsewhere were visiting the district and considering the
question of a naval base. So that, although the last great War was a war to
end war; and although we were looking forward to a peace treaty, it would appear that the British Empire was playing not quite a straight game so far as one of our Allies was concerned. It is perfectly clear from what Mr. Bruce and the present Colonial Secretary have said that they regard this as something very much more than merely a necessary repairing station. Let us look for the moment at the position of Japan. There we find a population of 80,000,000 with an average of 339 people to the square mile. She sees us with a population of 482 to the square mile; Italy with 319 and France with 187 to the square mile, and all these countries have their colonial possessions to provide for their surplus population. Japan says to herself "America is largely closed to us, Australia is closed to us. These nations with home populations only half of ours have abundant outlets. What are we going to do? How is our difficulty to be overcome?"
If we could put ourselves in the position of Japan we ought to recognise that some other solution ought to be found than something which may end in another disastrous and devastating war such as certain people seem to look forward to with an amount of camplacency which I cannot understand at all. Surely we have got to the point when the whole problem is not for one nation but rather for the League of Nations to deal with in order that we should not be leaving those who come after us this heritage of perpetual fear, and we should not suggest guarding against this by providing additional armaments, which can only lead to another war.
The Government position with regard to Singapore was announced on the 9th of December, and on the 18th December the Japanese Prime Minister made a speech which the "Times" correspondent wired to this country. He stated that several Japanese newspapers had published a statement by the Prime Minister on the question of Singapore, but that it had been contradicted, but after the contradiction the "Times" correspondent finished up his article in this way:
The Japan official attitude towards Singapore is expressed in the Japanese word 'shikataganai,' meaning 'it cannot be helped.' The national attitude is distrustful and partly hostile in spite of the
official explanation that the Washington Agreement is not contravened.
If we accept the contradiction of the speech of the Prime Minister we must accept the assurance that this is the attitude of Japan, and it is an attitude which none of us can look upon with any pleasure at all. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the resolution passed by the Japanese League of Nations Association, and there can be no question as to what the attitude of Japan is to the whole question. Surely we cannot afford to ignore it from any point of view. Two years ago the Colonial Secretary said that we were gradually building up a chain of oil reserves at various strategic points, and these cannot be protected without expenditure.
There are other dangers at Singapore which I think we ought to recognise. We have there a population of 450,000, of whom 75 per cent. are Chinese. I agree with the last speaker that the more friendly we can become with the Chinese the better but we have to consider that there may be very serious trouble with the yellow races. Not only is there this large preponderance of Chinese there, as compared with the white population of 7,000, but there is a yearly influx of 150,000 strangers, and the police report for 1923 says:
The complete prevention of the illicit import of arms is a thing which it is almost impossible to prevent.
Crime is on the increase, due to the activities of secret societies with a big record for murder, and battles with spears and knives in broad daylight. Therefore, with regard to the Singapore Base, we cannot look at it with any complacency, and we must recognise that there is very considerable danger in it from the nature of the population. On these benches we are sometimes charged with having no regard for the affairs of the Empire, but that is incorrect, because we have much regard for the whole conditions of the Empire and especially that portion of it at Singapore. We have also to consider whether there is not some other means of dealing with these great questions affecting Australia and New Zealand and other parts than simply resorting to the old methods.
Empire responsibility in the past has been regarded too much as a matter of trade and too little as a matter of human
life, and our strength will lie in the future rather in the endeavour to make life better for all, and introducing more of the human element rather than introducing any instruments which are going to result in possible disaster and another war. Let us not forget that in this huge population in Singapore that, so far as the revenue is concerned, 11 per cent. is coming from the sale of liquor and 48 per cent. from the sale of opium, which means that 59 per cent. of the revenue of Singapore is coming from the degradation of the Chinese population. No right thinking man or woman in any part of the British Empire will deny that some other method ought to be found, such as the League of Nations, for dealing with this tremendous problem by which we should win the affection of the world.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to-day with somewhat mingled feelings. To the first part of his speech I listened with surprise; to the second part with sorrow. In the first part, he was indulging himself in a perfect orgy of false deduction, and I was wondering why. That is why I listened with surprise. In the second part of his speech it was with sorrow, because I thought of the speech which he made last year and the speech which he made this year, and I thought to myself how can a man allow his political prejudices to alter his point of view—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—to the extent he did to-day. The real truth of the matter is this, that for the past three years the Socialist party have used Singapore as an election bogey. They have gone throughout the country saying, "Do not let us spend money on Singapore mud; let us spend it on the unemployed at home, and they created for themselves a political situation which, when they acquired the control of the Government, they had to honour.
Accordingly, when they did come into power what they did was this. They examined the position, as the right hon. Gentleman said, with care, but the course of action they adopted, as expounded in their speeches, was somewhat different from that which was suggested to-day. Last year in their speeches the Opposition
Cabinet Ministers took very good care to make the position secure for continuing at Singapore. They realised when they were in power that they would have to continue with this work, and, if one examines the speeches and statements made by hon. Members opposite, one finds that the whole of their policy was directed to fulfilling two points. First, to fulfilling their election pledges in stopping Singapore; and, second, to fulfilling the functions of a Government of this country to provide for its defence and provide means and arguments which could be used at a later date to allow them to go on with that project.
Now there has been another political upheaval. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) is in a position of more freedom and less responsibility, and the arguments he used to-day were ones which I think when he reads them in the morning he will somewhat regret. First of all, he said, "I do not mind a a police force at Singapore, if they are doing police duties," but he said, "If police duties mean that the cruisers used for police duties have to be backed up by a fleet, then I say we cannot use Singapore for police duties." Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not expect the House to swallow an argument of that sort.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I be allowed to make a correction, a clarification-What I said was, "Singapore could be used as a police base." The hon. and gallant Member interrupted me, saying it was necessary to back that up by first-class fighting ships. I said if that be so, it is a very strong argument against a police base, but I do not accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's deduction at all. If I did not make that clear, it is my mistake. I do not accept the statement that in order to make Singapore effective as a police, base you therefore have to make it a base for first-class fighting ships.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think we come to this point, that, if Singapore be required as a police base, then the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me, and, if it could be proved to him that a police base necessarily implies the ability to maintain the capital fighting ships, then his objection to Singapore would be waived for this reason. He
knows perfectly well that in any big action or any naval engagement first you begin with the destroyers and then with the cruisers and eventually you have to come back to your main prop, which is your battleship. Previously, Singapore was perfectly capable of fulfilling those purposes. The docks at Singapore were capable of taking the older type of battleship. Accordingly, Singapore could maintain police functions, but now all that has happened has been that there is a change in the type of vessel. Surely that is exactly the same as if a gentleman who used to keep horses and carriages gave them up when motor cars came in and wanted to put a motor car into his stables instead of the horses. Surely he would knock the stalls down and alter his stables into a garage. That is all that is going on to-day with regard to Singapore.
Another point which I think wants bringing out is the difference from the late Prime Minister's statement last year and what he said to-day. Last year he pointed out very clearly that we were not creating a new base at Singapore. He pointed out very clearly indeed that all we were doing was to bring it up to date, but to-day the whole of his speech was about the creation of a new base at Singapore. Therefore, if he accepts the whole of these premises, that if you maintain a police force you must back it up by battleships, all you are really doing is to bring an out-of-date place up to modern requirements. Then if that argument be accepted, the whole of his speech to-day was nothing more or less than camouflage. He was sheltering himself behind a barrage of high ideals, and all he was doing was endeavouring to justify the policy of his party through the last three General Elections. That is why I say that the latter part of his speech made me rather sorry that he should have done so.
With regard to the other attack which has been made from the benches below the gangway, the hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway, the hon. and gallant Member Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) put up what was to my mind an extraordinary argument. I would suggest to him that he might study the principle of dichotomy by contradiction. I never heard anyone contradict himself. so many times in one speech. What he
said in effect was this: "We do not want the old dockyards; we do not want Chatham and Sheerness." There I agree. If you vote against this policy to-day, you will be voting against useless expenditure. What has the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Bridgeman) tried to do? He has argued that there has been a great re-orientation of naval power, and says: "I want to carry out that re-orientation so far as the British Navy is concerned. Therefore, I am going to bring up-to-date that base upon which the strength of our fleets will rest." Accordingly, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness was attacking his own policy. In order to illustrate this, he called to mind what Lord Fisher did in 1904. Because of the menace and the growth of the German fleet, Lord Fisher shut down Esquimault; he brought the China fleet home, but he developed Rosyth. That is all that the Government to-day are seeking to do. They are asking us to develop a base at Singapore for that reason. What did his party or the leaders of his party do when the suggestion for economy was made? I made the very same suggestion in the last two years. What did one of his own leaders—I think he is one of his leaders, though I am not quite certain—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)—dol He said, speaking of doing away with Chatham:
The truth is, of course, that whatever might be said for that argument, nothing is more certain than that it would be a work of the very greatest difficulty, much greater than driving piles into the Singapore mud, to attempt to disestablish one of the dockyards in this country.
That is to say, although the right hon. Gentleman, one of the leaders of his party, realised that fact as soon as ho came up against the practical difficulty of having to carry it out, he ran away from it. I think it would be a very good thing if the hon. and gallant Member would try and get his leaders to endeavour to carry out the policy they care for instead of running away from it Then the hon. and gallant Member went on to another point. He quoted what General Smuts had said with regard to the difficulty of being able to send a fleet to Singapore, because, he said, there would inevitably be straining of our relations in Europe, and accordingly our Fleet could not be sent away. A week ago he was pointing out to this House that the
whole type of warfare had altered, that to-day this country was concerned with aerial matters only; that battleships were of very little value where you had contiguous countries to deal with, and that the aeroplane was able to blot out London. He gave arguments showing how London could be destroyed. How is it, if that be the case, that we want to chain our battleships to these shores? Surely, under those conditions, our battleships would be in much greater safety at Singapore. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that it is very necessary to enforce upon public opinion the idea that there is an entire re-orientation, not only of naval power, but of the defensive ability and capacity of this country. If we are really depending only on aerial power in this country, what is the use of those old dockyards at home? What becomes of the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Surely all that we would then be doing would be to carry out our re-orientation with due regard to economy and the taxpayers of this country. It could not in any way be contemplated that it was a menace to any Power in the world. If that be so, he has stated that the only danger to Australia and New Zealand in that regard is because of the great population of Japan wishing to emigrate to Australia and New Zealand and not being allowed to disembark in that country, but he has already told us that Japan, by its signatory to the League of Nations has agreed not to endeavour to send its emigrants to that country. Therefore, his argument that we are establishing a menace against the Japs falls to the ground on that basis also. For that reason I venture to suggest that the whole of this Debate has been nothing but imaginary in one sense. It is an endeavour on the part of the Socialist Government to justify an out-of-date election pledge. The Leader of the Opposition to-day stated that you could not have three fleets—you could not have a Pacific Fleet, a Mediterranean Fleet, and a Channel Fleet all at the same time. But, if we cannot do that, what becomes of the mobility of the Navy? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have always had these three fleets? Does he not realise that the amount of our naval power in the East before the growth
of the German fleet was very much greater than it is to-day, or than is contemplated? If we go back a little further, to the Debate last year, we find that, although the ex-Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet did not put up statements which were untrue, they had a kind of whipping boy in the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who came down to this House and, in fact, did make statements which were untrue—I do not, of course, mean personally untrue, but untrue from the strategical point of view—in endeavouring to justify the point of view of the Socialist Government. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), he said:
The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that in certain seas in the neighbourhood of Singapore there are some million tons of cargo to be found every day, and he tried to point out that Singapore was vital for their protection. He knows as well as anyone in this House that that was the reason why the cruisers were replaced, and that those cargoes are protected by our cruisers without any regard to Singapore as a naval base. It has been done in the years gone by, and it can be done in the future without any regard to the docks out there.
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that you must have a base for cruisers, and that it was not done without regard to the docks. All that happened was that those cruisers were able to get into the docks, and that is all that the Government are asking to-day. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say, further:
It is not a question of making larger docks for larger ships. The position is no different in that respect from what it was some years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1924; cols. 1194–5, Vol. 171.]
That, again, is a statement which is not true; the position is different from what it was a few years ago. When we last had a China Fleet, the battleships could dock at Singapore, but to-day our battleships cannot go into Singapore. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, when he came down last year as Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, was actually throwing dust in the eyes, not only of this House, but of the country, by making statements which were really untrue. Therefore, I think that, in so far as the Labour party are concerned, it would be very much better if they were to admit that what they were really doing was justifying their election pledges, instead of trying to build up, in defence of what
they are doing, an argument which can be pulled to pieces in five minutes.

Mr. AMMON: I do not propose to keep the House for very long while I deal with some of the points which have been raised in the Debate, but I think I had better deal first with those that have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). The hon. and gallant Member raised a similar point to that which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), namely, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had altered his position from what it was when this Estimate was before the House 12 months since. The best way to clear that up will be to read what my right hon. Friend said on the 18th March last year. He then said:
Should the practical necessity for putting such strategy into operation arise, by reason of the condition of world politics, and a return to attempts to provide Imperial security primarily by armaments, the whole question would have to be reconsidered. But, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that has not now arisen, and it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to try to prevent it ever arising. We have every confidence in our policy. We feel that the decision not to proceed with the naval base at Singapore will give that policy the best possible chance of success, and is an earnest of our good faith."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1924; col. 321, Vol. 171.]
The position taken up by my right hon. Friend is absolutely consistent with the statement I have just read to the House. What then was the position? The position was that, while we did recognise that in certain eventualities—military eventualities—the naval base might be necessary, we nevertheless considered that it would be better to proceed along the lines of making it unnecessary to develop it from that point of view. So far from its being said that my right hon. Friend's statement would secure a return to the Singapore position, surely it does exactly the reverse—it indicates that, if the necessary condition of affairs can be set up in Europe and in the world, then it will be unnecessary to waste this money or to go forward with what, after all, is a threat to the peace of the whole world. No one can deny that, immediately following the action taken by the last Government with regard to Singapore, we had the repercussion of it in Geneva and in
other parts of the world. Immediately my right hon. Friend received telegrams of congratulation from Australia, from New Zealand, and from General Smuts. Surely they count in the Empire, when we are talking in terms of Empire, and they one and all congratulated the Labour Government on the step they had taken. It is not right or fair for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to come down to this House and talk as if Australia were solid on this particular question. Mr. Charlton, the Leader of the Labour party who will probably be Prime Minister of that country before long, said very definitely that
The Labour Party was entirely opposed to Bruce committing Australia to the Singapore base"—
and the New Zealand Labour party cabled:
Heartily congratulate Government on dropping the Singapore scheme
To-day we have had a cable from them, also supporting us and asking us to go forward along the same lines. Whatever might be said pro or con on the case, let us discuss it, but do not let us try to deceive people into thinking that there is an entirely solid point of view so far as Australia is concerned. If anything demonstrates that, surely it is that, up to the moment, neither Australia nor New Zealand has renewed its offer with regard to a money grant towards going on with these proposals. So far, they have shifted their point of view, and have said that, if it be true that it is to be a protection for those countries, they had better build fortifications at Sydney or Auckland, where they would probably be of more use. In that connection I may quote a speech delivered in the New Zealand Parliament on the 6th August last by Mr. J. McC. Dickson, who said:
He had expected the Leader of the Opposition to deal with Singapore base, as he had been up in the East. They knew there was a considerable difference of opinion amongst experts as to whether that base should be established at Singapore, and on looking at the map one could only come to one conclusion—that it was directed against one nation. It was a long way from both Australia and New Zealand to Singapore, and if a base were needed for the protection of Australia and New Zealand, he should say that the base should be at Sydney or Auckland. Let them suppose that was correct; then Parliament should be prepared to make a very much more generous offer towards the establishment of that base than had been done.
That is the changed position that has come about in our Dominions at the present time, and let it be marked that they are under no misapprehension as to against whom this base is being directed, and what it is going to cause in regard to Japan. Mr. McC. Dickson states very clearly that it is aimed in that direction. It is said that there are no new factors, but, surely, there are new factors in the case just now. Japan itself has given expression to what it feels. The Prime Minister of Japan, Viscount Kato, speaking at a banquet on the 18th December last, observed that as an individual Japanese he did not welcome the proposal. That is fairly strong for a man in his position, because, when a Prime Minister speaks like that as an individual, you may be sure that he is speaking for more than one person. The correspondent of the "Times" cabled home on the 22nd December:
The Japanese official attitude towards Singapore is expressed in the Japanese word 'shikataganai,' meaning 'it cannot be helped.' The national attitude is distrustful and partly hostile, in spite of the official explanation that the Washington Agreement is not contravened.
What does it boil down to? It simply comes down to this: We have already had a demonstration in this House with regard to the Air Vote which we have passed, that already suspicion, and all the attitude of mind that goes to breed war, is taking possession of other nations. With regard to the Air Force there was a suggestion that we had to build against an Air Force which was within near striking distance of our shores. Precisely the same argument is now being carried out in the Pacific Ocean with regard to Singapore, and it will set up the same mentality. It is precisely the same position that obtained in the North Sea and Atlantic prior to 1914. We followed exactly the same policy, and it is bound to result in like manner.
If it is said—and let us admit that it might be said with truth—that this is being set up because of its strategic value, then where are we going to stop when we pursue that argument? Under that argument we can rightly go all over the world and indicate different points where it would be to our advantage that we should have forts and fortifications and troops, and, in some cases, ships,
because possibly at some time or another we might come into conflict with another Power. If that is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, it might also be pursued in regard to the thousands of miles of frontier that divide our Dominion of Canada from the United States. The very fact that we have not a single fort or a single sentry on either side of that boundary line is the greatest guarantee of peace that we can have between those nations. Put a single fort or a single sentry on one side, and at once you have the possibility of war in the future, as surely as night follows day. So it is with regard to this proposal. There can be no doubt that the Japanese nation is considerably disturbed.
My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that, if it is an answer to say that we are so many thousands of miles from the shores of Japan, it is equally an answer to say that we are safe from any attack from them. At a time like this we cannot afford the waste of money, and the bankruptcy of moral and idealist considerations involved, in setting ourselves to fight like this. I heard what the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge quoted from my speech, but, really, I do not see anything at all inconsistent in it. I pointed out, as I am still prepared to do, that we had sufficient protection to guard our line of trade routes, that the docks already at Singapore are capable of taking even our newest 10,000-ton cruisers—with the exception of two of our bulged aircraft carriers they can take them all, excepting, as the hon. and gallant Member rightly said, the newest types of capital ships. But what does that mean? It means that, if we are going to develop along these lines, we are going to be committed to a Western and an Eastern Navy, and that means that we must scrap the Washington Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It means, at any rate, that you will have to scrap the Washington Treaty, because, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) the other day, the five to three standard is not sufficient for us in these matters, and therefore we shall need to go further, and immediately we begin to do that we set up again all the suspicions and everything that tends again to drag us into war and all its evil aftermath. It is true that this vote
may be carried by sheer weight of numbers but it involves serious considerations. I listened with some amusement to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead when he said the Japanese have no right to be concerned about this. I should think the Japanese would think that pretty cool, to tell them they have no right to have any concern about fortifications which are being placed there for no other reason than that we are suspicious, or because they are meant against Japan. There can be no other purpose. You have said so yourselves in speeches made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) and also by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone, and others have repeated it, that we have to have regard to Japan in this matter. There can be no other interpretation than that which one is putting on it. What is the good of trying to deceive the House and the country and ourselves in making out that it is something entirely different from what it is? Be plain and honest about the matter, that you are expecting another war—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that you are taking a step to promote another war—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that this is actuated as much as anything else by fear of the Asiatic menace and that the action we have taken in other directions, of driving Russia into the arms of these people, is going to open up trouble about which we are already considerably alarmed. These are the points of view which we have to consider and which really underlie this policy. We have sufficient at Singapore to protect our trading. We have enough to be able to fuel our cruisers and others that are there. Surely if it has been possible to go along so far without having any fortifications there, why can we not continue a little longer? The thing cannot be built for a number of years. At least do not let us damage and spoil the atmosphere we are trying to create, which was created by my right hon. Friend, but which has been largely dissipated since—and this will go a long way towards it—the atmosphere of peace. Do not let us proceed along that line if by delay we can find other ways and means whereby we can come together and find our way into a more amicable settlement of disputes. The Whips will be on and the Government will have a majority, but let the House be under no mis-
apprehension. This £11,000,000 that you are being asked for is but the beginning of demand after demand that is going to follow as sure as the night follows the day. It is not even so sure that the £11,000,000 will satisfy even the engineering demand. There are mud flats and an alluvial soil. True there has he-en some rock found, but it is not quite sure to what, extent and as has been admitted, it will be necessary to have a garrison. You will have to have capital ships there and an Air Force. All these things will be necessary, and twice 111,000,000 will not be enough even for the initial capital expenditure, to say nothing of the further expenditure which will follow in the years to come. That alone ought to give us some pause. At, a time like this, when we cannot afford to waste the money and when there is no menace and no threat to our supremacy in those seas, we want to do nothing which will waste money and deflect it from much needed expenditure at home, and, above all, we should not give our Ally and their people, who stood by us during the War, occasion to feel we now regard them as potential enemies, to stir op an opinion that is bound to result in a war more terrible and devastating in the days to come than that from which we have just emerged.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am riot sere that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) who leads the Opposition will be very grateful to the hon. Member who has just sat down for his interpretation of the reasons which are going to persuade them to go into the Lobby against the Singapore base. He said the policy we are advocating is one actuated by fear of Japan and by a desire to defend ourselves against a danger which does not exist, and that such a policy is one which they cannot support. The Leader of the Opposition earlier in the day, when referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) on Thursday last, absolved himself from any inconsistency in his attitude. I ask, quite plainly, that, if our proposal of a base at Singapore is a sign of fear of Japan and of a menace to Japan endangering the peace of the world, what was their policy of building five cruisers last year but exactly the same thing?

Mr. AMMON: You wanted eight.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, and I am not going to complain. But may I remind the right hon. Gentleman, if this be such a menace, what he himself said about the cruisers—
Are we going to be told—and I want a straight answer on this point—that the method of bringing about disarmament and of carrying out pledges is to allow the Navy to disappear by wasting from the bottom? What a magnificent conception of pacifist principles is held by hon. Members who think the best way to bring about disarmament is to allow your ships to fall to pieces. This is not my view, and it never will be.
What is the difference between that and making your base at Singapore efficient? It is exactly the same point Another point that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke last, tried to make was, that Australia and New Zealand have changed their minds. I thought I had quoted enough, at any rate, from Mr. Bruce's speech last Thursday to show that Australia had certainly not changed her mind.

Mr. WALLHEAD: He does not speak for Australia.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Government has to speak for this country for the time being, and the Prime Minister of Australia for Australia. The hon. Gentleman suggested that because Australia and New Zealand had already given the money to another purpose, which they had intended to give to Singapore, therefore, they were lukewarm about this. The reason they could not give to Singapore was because the late Government stopped the programme, and no one in his senses imagines that Australia and New Zealand were going to put down money for a thing with which the Government of the day said they were not going to proceed. Therefore, to say they have changed their minds is to say what is distinctly contrary to the facts.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two or three minor questions, which he was quite entitled to ask, and I should like to answer them. He asked whether we had considered the difficulty of malaria in the situation selected for the dock we propose to set up. He also asked if the Army and the Air Force had been consulted as to the suitability of the place for defence. All these things, and the question of accommodation of the men
who will have to work there, have been very carefully gone into by all the arms of the Service. As a matter of fact, they were gone into long before hon. Gentlemen opposite came into office, and although, of course, he could not himself have had time to look carefully into it, I think he will take the assurance from me that they have all been carefully gone into, and they were before his advisers once and, I understand, they advised him to go on with the base at Singapore. He also asked me how many ships we proposed to send to Singapore. What we want is to have a base where capital ships can go if we want them to. The number that will go will depend upon circumstances. What we want—there is no reason to hesitate about it—is to be able, if necessary, to have a dock where battleships can go and to have a base where they can be safe and can be quickly repaired. He asked if we were going to provide now barracks for troops and for the Air Force and railways. I gave last Thursday the details of the expense of the present proposal, which is merely to establish a floating dock, which amounted to something like £1,100,000 in the course of three years, that is assuming the extension of the floating dock is put into the building programme. Of that, barracks for the troops and for the Air Force form no part. There is already a railway to within, I think, two or three miles of the spot. It will be necessary—and that is included in the cost—to make a branch of the railway from a place between Singapore and Woodlands—that is the name of a station on the northern shore—to the site of the floating dock. I think that answers the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
The Debate has produced some very interesting speeches. We have had excellent maiden speeches, on Thursday from the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) and to-day from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), both of whom spoke with great experience of the local conditions at Singapore. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) has also spoken with local knowledge and experience. Those speeches have left me very little to answer, because they have answered nearly all the points raised by hon. Members opposite. The strategic importance of this position has been fully
admitted, certainly Last year, by hon. Members opposite. Again and again the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Ammon) have said that so far as the strategic value of the position goes they had no fault to find with it, but believed it was the best strategic position, and not only the best, but I think they actually used the expression, the best position for defence, and after all it is about defence that we are speaking. He said:
For the purpose of immediate defence it is the best position.
There is no difference among us as to this being the best position we can have. There is no doubt that it is not a breach of the Washington Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman last year said, quite plainly, that it was no breach of the Washington Treaty, but his hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) got up to-night and said that the moment we do this We shall scrap the Washington Treaty.

Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Gentleman must quote me fairly. What I said was that this will lead inevitably to a breach of the Washington Treaty.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member did not say how it could do so, and I see no reason why it should. His right hon. Friend never thought that, when he said last year that it was no breach of the Washington Treaty. When we have admitted that this proposal is no breach of the Washington Treaty, and that it is the best strategical base, what are the arguments which we have to answer? One argument which was used last Thursday was that it will take 10 or 11 years to complete, and the right hon. Gentleman asked, why hurry? I should have thought that the very fact that it will take a long time to complete would be the very argument for beginning as soon as we can. What about the housing question? We know that the housing problem cannot be solved satisfactorily for years. Would the right hon. Gentleman say for that reason we ought not to begin at once? That illustrates the value of his argument about not beginning at Singapore, because it will take years to complete.
The right hon. Gentleman also said—I am trying not to misquote him—that we shall see when a war is coming, and we shall be able to prepare for it. If in
this country we are going to adopt the foolish policy that the Government of the country is able to foresee exactly when the next war is coming, we shall be doing what, to my mind, is the most dangerous thing that we could possibly embark upon. You may think that you know when the war is coming, and if you think you can see it so far off that you can prepare for it, surely the other country or countries with whom you may think that you are going to be at war may increase and expedite their preparations, or seize the opportunity of attacking you before you are ready, or even before you begin. Of all the dangerous policies that this country could adopt, the most dangerous is to imagine that this Government or any other Government, can foresee exactly when the next war is coming. That policy has never been very successful in the past and I do not think that any Government that tries it is likely to be successful in the future.
Another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that the cruisers were quite enough, without anything else. If by any unfortunate accident we should be at war with any country in the future the position would be very different from that which obtained when we were at war with Germany. In the war with Germany a certain number of German raiders got on to the high seas and raided our commerce and did an immense amount of damage to our supplies and our trade. In that war, however, we were able to encompass almost the whole of the German ships that might have got out. But if we were at war with any other country, we should not be in such a favourable position, and if the country with which we were at war chose to take the line of attacking our commerce there would be not simply a few "Emdens" and "Gneisenaus," but there would be an immense number of raiders out all over the seas. If it took 70 cruisers, as it did, to round up those few German raiders, what would be the prospect before us if our trade routes were attacked again by another Power which had a better opportunity of sending out cruisers to attack us? Our cruisers at Singapore without the support of battleships will not be a sufficient defence.
I do not want to do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. He was very fair in saying that he did not look upon
the position as very satisfactory. He thought there was a possibility of danger. He used one or two expressions in his speech on Thursday to which I would allude. He spoke of a pan-oriental conference, and asked what the fact of our going on with the Singapore base would have upon such a conference? Does he really mean that if a pan-oriental conference saw that we were either too weak or too stingy or too incapable of preparing for the future, and for that reason neglected to make our Fleet in those waters efficient, that that would make them any less hostile, if they are to be hostile to this country? On the other hand, I think that any sign of weakness or wavering of that kind would just be the thing that would tend to make people show their feeling against us, rather than for us.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Japan or ourselves might make a false move. That means that nobody can foresee for a considerable time ahead what the danger may be. The sky looks perfectly clear and unclouded now, but there may be a change of Government here or there or in America or in any ether country, and somebody may make a false move, and then trouble may begin. Therefore, the only proper course is to be prepared for that eventuality as far as we can be prepared. The right hon. Gentleman said on Thursday, and again to-day, that Russia was going to be a far greater danger to us in the East than anywhere else, and he held that out as another risk. If that be so, and if, as is apparent to everybody, our policy is merely a policy of defence, it would be a very dangerous thing to make no sort of preparation of this kind against the risk which even the right hon. Gentleman foresees.

Mr. MacDONALD: The whole of my argument is this. Given these conditions, and given these possibilities, the move that the Government is now making is of the nature of that false move which is going to result in all the damage.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought perhaps that that might be the meaning of my right hon. Friend. That was why I could not understand him when he immediately proceeded to talk about the danger from Russia.

Mr. MacDONALD indicated dissent.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps I had better not try to interpret my right hon. Friend's words any further. At any rate, that is the impression which his words made upon me, and I think it was the impression which they made on my hon. Friends on this side. The assumption was that this action of ours might be an offence to Japan or to somebody else, and that being so, we ought not to proceed with it; that a gesture had been made by the abandonment for the time being of the Singapore Base scheme, and that the gesture seemed likely to be fruitful. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been fruitful, because it had produced the Protocol. Had the Protocol been carried into effect, it would grave required a very mach larger Navy to carry on the work that we should have had to do than any Navy we have now. The obligations which would have been put upon our Navy under the Protocol would have been far in excess of anything that now applies. Therefore, the base at Singapore would have been far more necessary.
This Singapore scheme is not an offence to Japan, or to anybody else. Hon. Members opposite think that the opinion of Japanese officials is worth nothing. They say, in effect, "you quote Admiral this or Admiral that; that is nothing to us." Then they quote what some tourist tells them of the gossip of the bazaars, as if that was the thing we must accept. You are not right, I say to hon. Members opposite, in ignoring the official attitude of Japan. That attitude is perfectly correct. We have never complained of them or they of us. They have never gone outside the Washington Treaty, and we have not gone outside the Treaty. We are not going to quarrel with them in what we do now, or for what they have done on their part.
If the right hon. Gentleman persists in saying that we must still continue this gesture, whether there be any response to it or not, I reply that he must remember what it means to Australia, New Zealand and India. It means giving up the possibility of defending the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. It means that, in order that we may avoid what some people choose to think is an offence, we may have to risk the whole of our trade position in both those seas. If you are unable to bring battleships to a base there, how can
you possibly defend those seas if we happen to be at war If you do not want to defend them, well and good; but there are people who do want to defend them, and who think that it is our duty to our Empire to do so. Mr. Bruce, in the statement from which I quoted the other day, said that if we discontinued this proposal Australia would regard themselves as deserted by the Empire. Who can contemplate that position with equanimity? We have heard a great deal about gestures—gestures to people we do not know, who are supposed to be going to take offence. Why cannot we, instead of making grimaces at our Dominions—I suppose I must not call them our Dominions, because the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) objects to that term. I do not know whose Dominions I should call them.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The King's Dominions.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I feel that if we abandon this proposal, the position of the Dominions, as Mr. Bruce described it, will be one of great difficulty. I prefer, and I think the House would prefer, that we should honour our proposal, in order that the gesture we may make may be a gesture of goodwill to our Dominions. I have cut my observations as short as I could, because I understand there is an agreement that the Vote should be taken by 8.15. Therefore, if I have missed some points, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it was because I was anxious not to prevent the agreement being realised.

8.0 P.M.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I would not have intervened again in this Debate if it had not been for the concluding remark of the First Lord of the Admiralty last week, when he very aptly introduced the Ciceronian quotation in order to convict me of advocating parsimony on the ground that parsimony is the greatest tax. I quite agree. I do not think that anyone can accuse me of having ever advocated parsimony, but extravagance is even worse. What I accuse his Department of is extravagance. We have heard about gestures from both sides of the House. In fact, Singapore does not seem to be any use. It does not seem to be required. It seems to be a waste of public money either as a gesture for the peace with Japan or
a gesture to the Dominions. That may be very satisfactory to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government and on the Front Opposition Benches, but it is very cold comfort to the British taxpayer who is going to pay for these things, and who would like to be a little snore convinced by argument as to why this base should be proceeded with at all.
I assert, without fear of contradiction, that if the War of 1914 had never taken place and if the German Fleet were not at the bottom of Scapa Flow we should never have been discussing this Singapore Base. The British Empire would have gone on without this expenditure, as it had been going on for a very long time, and we should have been told, what was perfectly true, that our concentration should be in the North Sea. Our horizon would not have developed in this way, and we should never have had these discussions about the strength of the Japanese Fleet or the necessity for a base at Singapore. It is a melancholy reflection, that the only result of the destruction of the fleet of our late opponents seems to be to create new opponents and to involve us in these further commitments.
It is useless for the First Lord of the Admiralty to keep on endeavouring to misrepresent the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) has been trying to put before this House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman neither requires nor wishes me to say a good word for him, but, at any rate, it is no harm to point out that the right hon. Member for Aberavon puts the position fairly when he said that you cannot measure public opinion by official utterances. Officials cannot say what is in the public mind, and Japanese admirals cannot say that. They cannot say officially or even publicly what the people may feel privately. You cannot ignore the feelings of a country which may he—I am not speaking with authority—driven in a wrong direction by what is represented to them as a menace to themselves. The First Lord of the Admiralty went on to explain at great length that the Singapore base was not a menace to Japan, nor, on the other hand, did he say that it was any protection to Australia. Therefore, we on these benches wish to know what is the object of it. What is the strategic importance of it?
If you were proposing to spend money on Hong-Kong which you are debarred from doing under the Washington Treaty you, at any rate, would have a strategic position of importance—this I understand is the view held by a certain school on the Admiralty staff—which would be useful for the defence of Australia, but what we are talking about at Singapore would not seem to fulfil these requirements. I would like to refer again to the statement made by the present Colonial Secretary in this House on the 31st July, 1924. He ridiculed the idea that Singapore would have any effect on the Pacific. To say that Singapore dominates it would be absurd. The importance of the Singapore base, he said, lies not upon the Pacific Ocean, of which it covers only an infinitesimal section, but it lies upon the Indian Ocean. Then the Colonial Secretary was put up to say, "Oh, we require protection for the Indian Ocean, and we are protecting Australia and New Zealand from hypothetical attack by Japan."
I cannot understand the references in the whole of these discussions to the trade [...]outer. The late War taught us, first, chat you have to alter the whole of your pre-conceived ideas on the subject of trade routes. We had always dwelt on the great importance of Suez and the Mediterranean as a trade route, but, in the last War, we had to change the trade route and go back to the route by the Cape of Good Hope. Therefore, in the conditions which we are now conceiving, it will be much more likely that Australia would alter her trade route to the Panama Canal rather than go on past Singapore and through the Indian Ocean. Therefore the idea of these trade routes which look very nice on maps, but which war experience compels us to modify, leaves me very cold. The whole theory of a base on Singapore is that you must have your battleships, cruisers, submarines and all the rest of it. Suppose that you cannot get your battleships out when they are wanted, then you must go on the basis of having a permanent battleship fleet there. If you do that, you have already accepted by the Washington Conference such a limitation of your battleship fleet, that when you send the necessary battleships to Singapore, then what is left in your home stations and in the Mediterranean in the shape of battle-
ships would be hardly worth speaking of, and I cannot imagine any Government which would in this manner neglect vital defences for what are, after all, secondary trade routes in time of war.
Surely, when you look at the matter from a larger point of view, the last war showed us one thing which we cannot forget. That is that as long as you can keep your home country free from invasion, you can carry on a war almost indefinitely. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We carried on for nearly five years without inconvenience to ourselves, and, although the submarine operations were a new development, without any serious reduction of our imports and that was only possible because the country was secure from invasion. That was the experience of the Napoleonic wars which went on for nearly 20 years. Do not let us get away again into the old discussion as to what might be called the strategic importance of the protection of commerce, or the chasing of commerce in war time. I see in the whole movement a very dangerous strategic policy creeping in. You will merely sub-divide your fleet to such an extent as to make it weak in all waters and thus lose the enormously powerful position in which you are to-day. The Board of Admiralty must realise that we have not got an infinite amount of money to spend. If the base were to cost no money either to establish or to maintain, obviously we might look at it from a different angle, but that is not the way in which the House of Commons or the Government or the nation can afford to look at it at the present time.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite referred to the remarks of my hon. Friend beside me and the proposal to do away with a dockyard like Chatham, which I believe is a relic of the Dutch ware, just as Portsmouth is a relic of the wars against France, and Rosyth is a relic of the War against Germany, while I suppose Singapore may be a relic of a war against Japan. He entirely misunderstood the point which my right hon. Friend made. His point was that the Admiralty never give up that which has been established. They merely add the expense of new schemes to the old standing expenditure. If Chatham is no longer wanted, then abolish Chatham and reduce your Estimates, and
then you can come with more force to ask for greater expenditure in the East. But you are merely adding to the burden of the already overburdened taxpayer. Though our trade is disappearing, our factories are being closed, and our population is not increasing as would be expected, that is nothing. You want to impose more burdens to protect the routes of trade when, if things go on as they are doing now, there will be no trade to protect in 10 years' time. That is a matter in which I cannot understand the logic of the minds of people who want to protect something which is disappearing, when what they really need is to remove the cause of its disappearance.
You may say that you are not going to spend much money, but those expenses always increase. Neither you nor I have the slightest idea of what the expenditure is going to be. If your desire is to have a dock for the repair of larger ships why not have a dock which would do for commercial ships of large size, not a dock of enormous size with all the paraphernalia of admiralty equipment, but a dock which would do for commerce as well as for warships. You could probably save a very large amount of money in expenditure which would be incurred by the project which is now brought forward. I doubt if dock accommodation of that kind would be utilised to any very considerable extent by commercial ships, but by this joint arrangement of that kind, it seems to me that you could have something that would satisfy economy, and satisfy the requirements of large ships. I throw out that suggestion because I think it is worth a considerable amount of investigation. I dare say that it will not be popular in official circles.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a new idea at all.

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid that there have been no new ideas since the time of the Second Dynasty in Egypt 3,000 years B.C., but the fact that it is an old idea is no reason why it should not be considered.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has been considered.

Sir A. MOND: Then apparently it has been rejected. I am not surprised. It is exactly what I should have expected. Being a practical businesslike idea it was most likely to be rejected. If you had an
Admiralty which considered the matter from the business and practical point of view, I dare say that it would be found that they could manage one with the other. I have heard too many of these arguments as to the impossibility of working different things together to be impressed by them. I have heard that you cannot combine naval and military hospitals, but I believe that during the stress of war these things happened, and people went into them and everything went on all right. The fact that this proposal has been rejected only impresses me with the fact that Members of the House of Commons should have put before them the reasons why it has been rejected so that they might make up their minds on the subject. I do not imagine that there are such marvellous people in the world as those experts who are more than human, and I cannot understand the arguments of people who say that we must not use our judgment in technical matters of that kind. I would be very interested to have all these arguments presented to us in a White Paper. We would then be able more easily to come to a conclusion on a scientific question of this sort. Instead of that, we are obliged to spend too much time in what I might call exterior political considerations, the sand which is thrown into the eyes on all discussions on Estimates, though those Estimates are really a question of money and not merely a question of policy. I understand that this Debate is to continue for a considerable time.
It is a pity that the First Lord cut short an interesting speech because he thought there was to be a Division at 8.15. We would have liked him to have dealt, not merely with this problem, but with some other problems which were raised in the former day's Debate. I hope we shall get down to the question how far these Estimates are to stand, because if this is the minimum it is obvious that the maximum will be a great deal higher. There is not one penny piece for Singapore in the Navy Estimates for this year, and therefore, in reality, the whole discussion is scarcely relevant to the money Chat we are now voting. We have no idea of what money will be required in the future. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said that we would go slowly, spending £750,000 a year or something like that. Is it really economical, if you are going to build, to dole out money like
that? It ought to be cheaper in the long run to build at a quicker rate. Are the Government or are they not going at the same time seriously to take in hand what is a very difficult, problem, namely, the discontinuance of some of our dockyards, which are no longer up to date or situated where they ought to be? Are the Admiralty endeavouring to concentrate on fewer dockyards and thus effecting economies? It is a difficult and an unpopular thing to do, and calls for a great deal of courage.
After all, the Government is in a position which very few Governments have been in for a long time—the position of having a very large majority and having the confidence of its followers, and if such steps are ever to be taken, surely this is the time to take them. I hope that the First Lord and his friends fully believe that we on these benches are in no way hostile to that great service, the Navy. In no way have we a desire to diminish its efficiency or its importance, but we do feel, and feel strongly, that, in these days of strain and of a difficult financial and industrial position, it is absolutely necessary for us to look closely at all public expenditure and to insist that it be reduced to the narrowest possible limits.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken asked us to remember that in the last War we were taught something which we should never forget. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember one thing that he seems to have forgotten, and that is that the Navy cannot and never will be able to get on without fortified and properly equipped bases. No one wishes to controvert the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that we here are the custodians of the, national interest. But he went on to say what I thought was very unreasonable, when he stated that, the naval experts have such an effect on the politicians at, the head of the Department that they carried those politicians away, so to speak. My experience has certainly never been of that kind. It is clear to me that the politicians are not converted even by the arguments of their political opponents, and they certainly are not likely to be carried away unduly by the remarks of experts. After all, we pay these experts. We give them high
pay and good prospects, and they would be failing absolutely in their duty if they omitted, not only to point out the problems of the present and the future, but to pick up all the wisdom they could from history.
The Leader of the Opposition made one particular suggestion whereby he thought the Singapore base could be done away with, namely, that an increased measure of efficiency in the Navy would provide what we require. I say quite clearly, and with complete conviction that efficiency solely and wholly would not do for us what the Singapore base would achieve. We could not by sheer efficiency, with the Fleet as at present constituted, protect our trade routes or cur possessions in the Pacific, no matter how well and how splendidly the Navy might work. Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there is in prospect a pan-Oriental combination. I can conceive nothing that should give us cause to think more than that. There could be no better reason for caution and precaution and foresight on our part in regard to the creation of a base. The right hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, and who spoke for the slender and dissipated remnants of the Liberal party on Thursday last, said that his party had been consistent in opposing Singapore. That is perfectly true. It is also very discreditable. It is just as discreditable as the policy that they pursued right up to August, 1914, a policy which left the British Fleet without a base of any kind in the North Sea. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Liberal party had won the War. All I can reply is, that that is a contemptible thing to say. No party won the War. Existing critics would deny instantly that the Liberal party had anything to do with winning the War, and historians most certainly will fail to record it. I would like to quote from a book which has been recently published. This is what it says about the failure to provide a base before the War:
It was the oft-repeated omission that the new oceanic crisis found the British Fleet in the main threatre of War without any adequate docks, without ship repair establishments without a properly protected home for rest, refreshment and refits; but the British Navy had to console itself with the reflection that this lack of a base in the North Sea proved it innocent of the aggressive aims which produced the War.
The book from which I am quoting is entitled, "The Naval Side of British History," and is one which I may respectfully commend to the attention of those who have not yet read it. So far as I understand this problem—and I think in what I say I am speaking for the Members on this side of the House—the Singapore Base proposal originated solely in a desire for the security of our possessions and our trade. We still have the prospect of running great risks, and we have had to run gigantic risks in the past. Twice in little over 100 years the British Fleet has been responsible for the overthrow of a despot. There is no other way of putting it and no milder way of describing it. The great Napoleon, though he was very very great, was compelled, finally, to say after his downfall when he went on board the "Bellerephon" to go to St. Helena,
In all my plans I have always been thwarted by the British Fleet.
Who can say that at this time there is no boy or no man alive who will not in our lifetime rise to power and try to hold the world in thrall? I make bold to say there is such an individual alive at the present time, and that it will be the duty of the British fleet to thwart him. The recent postponement of the Singapore project was unquestionably a perfectly genuine attestation of our peaceful intention, but what has that attestation produced? Absolutely nothing, unless it may be that the reverberation from it is the laying dawn and construction of a large number of extra warships in different parts of the world. As I have said, the sole object of the Singapore base is to provide that for which every nation in the world is looking, namely, security for possessions. The actual foundation of Singapore has been discussed in a very interesting manner in a maiden speech this afternoon, but looking at the map one will realise that if it had not been taken, as it was, it would have become the property of the powerful and great Dutch nation, and I have no hesitation in saying it would have caused the Eastern gate of the world—at any rate in 1819—to be closed to the British and all other fleets, whether war fleets or merchant fleets. The fact that through the foresight of a great man Singapore was taken and became British property undoubtedly conduced very much to what is called the Pax Britannica, and certainly
to that freedom of the seas which every nation of the world enjoyed for nearly 100 years. If we do not protect our interest and our property some greater and more virile nation will contemptuously brush us aside and take these possessions.
May I repeat in a few sentences something which I remarked in a speech on this subject last year? In the year 1905 I was at Singapore, and one early morning I was called to the deck of the ship on which I was serving. There unexpectedly hove in sight a very large and straggling fleet. The fleet in question consisted of battleships, cruisers and smaller craft, and they had come the whole way from the Baltic, riot through the Suez Canal, but around the Cape of Good Hope. They passed in sight of Singapore as they had to do in order to get through the Straits and they appeared to be extremely inefficient and utterly weary, both as regards machinery and personnel. They were not allowed to stop at Singapore it being a neutral port, and so they staggered on to Tsu Shima where they were annihilated by the Japanese fleet. There is no question that their annihilation was very largely conduced to by their inability to find any port for rest and refreshment. Hon. Members will agree with me that there is a great risk that the world is not sufficiently peaceful to assure us that such things can never happen again, and, if we do not possess an adequate base at Singapore, the same thing might happen to our own ships. Speaking from the historical point of view, I think at no time in our naval history have we ever been able to get along unless our fleet had somewhere in which it could rest and be safe, and in which the personnel could be allowed to rest in quiet with the certainty that they were not going to be attacked. As fleets become more complicated the necessity for bases of that kind increases. I saw a few days ago an announcement of a subject for an essay. It was "Communications across the oceans of the world being essential to the Empire, how best can they be safeguarded?" The answer in a few words is: By the creation of adequate and efficient bases at proper strategic points.

Mr. CONNOLLY: In rising to support the Amendment which has been moved from the Front Opposition Bench, I intend
to approach this subject from two standpoints, first that of security, and secondly that of British industry. When large sums of money, whether national money or our own money, are to be expended, we first ask the question: Is the object of the expenditure necessary or not? In this case we must ask ourselves: Is the proposed base at Singapore necessary for national security? Against whom are the operations for which it is intended to be directed? Are they to be directed against Japan who has been a faithful Ally as history will prove? Are they to be directed against Germany, whose fleet lies at the bottom of Scapa Flow? Are they to be directed against France, our Ally and friend, or against our cousins in America? I put this question to all Members of the House. If we were looking for a safe place to live in within the confines of our Empire, a place where we would be immune from the dangers and horrors, where would we go? Would we remain here at home, in our seagirt island, protected by our own Fleet, protected again by the great Air Arm? Would we be safe here? No, we would not. Would we be Cafe on the highly fortified rock of Gibraltar? No. Is safety behind the armed frontiers of India, or in Africa, or in Australia, under the protection of our Navy? No. We know that there is no such thing as immunity from danger in these places, and where are we to go? [An HON. MEMBER: "Try Russia!"] Not to Russia, but we have to turn our faces west, to our own Dominion of Canada, and what do we see there?
We see 3,000 miles of frontier, stretching from St. John's to Vancouver, and not a fortification, not a sentinel, not a gun, and 125 years of peace. That is the history of our own Dominion of Canada in her relationship with the United States of America. But if, 125 years ago, there had not been men on the North American Continent with the will for peace, a different page of history might have been written. If one gun had been erected on the northern frontier, two guns would have gone up on the south, if three on the north, four on the south, until the whole 3,000 miles of frontier line would have been bristling with armaments. Then somebody would have said something and somebody would have done
something, an overt act would have been committed, guns would have gone off, and war would have been commenced, and would have gone on for two or three years. Then peace would have come, an armed peace, worse than the war itself, with its crushing burden of armaments upon both peoples. That might have been the history of our North American Dominion of Canada if it had not been for the will for peace.
With regard to the Singapore base, those who sit opposite and say that it is a necessary thing will be able, in the years to come, to look back and say they were right, if this is established. They will be able to say: "Did we not tell you that a naval base in the China Sea was necessary?" because, if it is placed there, it will become necessary because it is placed there. Protection begets protection, menace begets menace, and, as sure as we are here to-night, if the Singapore base is established, war will break out in the China Sea and the Indian Ocean. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) said that this question of security was much wider than navies or armies, and that the question of accompanying taxation was involved, and I want to point out a greater menace than exists in the China Sea or the Indian Ocean. I have here two sets of simple figures relating to costs in industry. We all know that the reduction of taxation is necessary. These figures are taken from the accounts of a large shipyard in the district that I represent here, and they show that the rates, local and national, together with insurance, in the financial year 1914–15 were £2 16s. per year per man employed and in the financial year 1924–25 the figure was £13 6s. 8d., or approximately five times the amount.
What are we going to do with industry? If we have this £11,000,000, which many experts think will eventually be £30,000,000, to found a naval base at Singapore, can we not expend it upon something that will revive industry instead of pouring the gold into the waters of the China Sea? We have facing us this immense incubus of taxation and this proposal of the Government, which, in the first instance, according to the Naval Estimates, is slightly under £10,000,000, but which will probably go up to £30,000,000, means the
charges hanging another little millstone of about £2,000,000 a year round the neck of British industry. I suggest that, as far as we as a nation are concerned, if we have this money to spare, we might do something with it similar to what our late enemy, Germany, is doing to revive her industries. Germany, despite all her militarism, in pre-War days could afford her millions for industrial research. She took all our aniline dyes from us, and she spent £1,250,000 that she might have spent upon a naval base.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): This is a Vote for naval works. It would not be in order to suggest alternative methods of spending the money. It would be perfectly in order to say that the money is improperly expended, or that an excessive amount is proposed, but it would not be in order to suggest alternative objects on which it might be expended.

Mr. CONNOLLY: We are spending this money presumably to give us security, and there is a military axiom which says that in the last resort and in the last analysis we depend upon manpower. I want to point out that the absolute source of security is in Britain's man-power, and not in naval bases. We got 5,000,000 men to go to the Continent of Europe because they were in a certain frame of mind, not because we had conscription. No force would have sent our 5,000,000 men on to the Continent of Europe had they not believed they had country that was worth fighting for. That is why they went, and no other force would have got them there. Now we have 1,250,000 of these men who are walking the streets and beginning to doubt whether the country was worth fighting for, and that, to my mind, constitutes a greater menace. The state of mind of these men constitutes a greater menace—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are several opportunities on which that might be argued, but here the discussion is limited. It is proposed to spend some £2,500,000 on naval works, including works at Singapore, and the only subject of discussion is whether or not that proposal ought to be voted. It is not in order to suggest alternative subjects on which money might be spent. The discussion must be confined to naval works.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I have spoken about the menace against which I consider we ought to protect ourselves. I will conclude my remarks by addressing the Front Bench in this sense, that, as far as this setting up of a naval base at Singapore is concerned, it is a mistake, it is a world mistake. The world wants peace, not naval bases. It wants reduction of taxation, and what great nation is going to lead the world back to peace? What nation is better fitted than our own great nation, and what better place is there than this, the heart of the Empire, the Floor of the British House of Commons, to make, to use a hackneyed phrase, a great gesture of peace to the world? We are a great nation, a great commonwealth of nations, and a great responsibility rests upon us. We have taught the world how to fight. We have fought 43 wars in 50 years. We are the greatest fighting nation the world has ever seen, and it is our clear duty to lead the nations back to the path of peace and prosperity, and there is no better place to do that than here Every afternoon we gather here and say our prayers, and we say them privately, praying for peace among the nations. I say the Government Bench has the opportunity to give a great gesture to the world that we desire peace, not naval base peace, not armed peace, but a real peace, and peace worthy of men who call themselves followers of the Prince of Peace.

Captain W. HALL: On rising to address the House for the first time I feel a certain amount of trepidation. I have listened to very much the same arguments on one side of the House and on the other, and it is very difficult, speaking so late in the Debate, to get any fresh points on which to touch. But I rise for the reason that I was born in Australia, and have lived most of my life in this country, Therefore, I feel some obligation to my friends and relations in Australia to state my views, and also a great obligation to this country, in which I have lived so many years of my life. I should like to put the point of view of the Australians to hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they have not read in the last day or two the extracts from the speech of Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, on this question of Singapore, at the close of a Cabinet meeting in Melbourne about a
month ago. It was reported very fully in the Press of this country, but what have not been reported very fully in the Press of this country are the newspaper comments on that speech. To-day I have had the opportunity of looking at some of the comments that have been cabled, and, in all eases, the Press opinion in Australia is very much in favour of the Singapore scheme as outlined by Mr. Bruce, and is not confined to journals of the same political colour as Mr. Bruce, but represent all shades of opinion in Australia. I do not want to tire the House by reading extracts from journals, but I would like to read one from the "Sydney Daily Telegraph," which is very widely read there, possesses no great political bias one way or the other, and, if I may say so, is rather equivalent to the "Times" of this country. It says:
Whatever views might be held on the subject in Great Britain and the other parts of the world, there is no question of the Australian view. Bruce has made that plain enough, not once but many times.
I think that puts the case very well so far as Australia is concerned. The hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), in the course of his very fluent speech, said "Why go to Singapore? Why not go to Sydney?" That question has been thrashed out in Australia pretty thoroughly. At one time there was a fairly strong opinion in Australia in favour of having the base at Sydney, but that has now been practically dropped so far as any strategical opinion is concerned. They are inclined to go to Singapore. The reason they wanted Sydney, to my mind, was that they liked to think of a big base in Australia; but they have seen beyond these parochial points now, and are quite ready to go to Singapore. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) quoted a speech of Mr. Charlton, the leader of the Labour party in Australia, and he mentioned—I Vas very much surprised to hear him say so—that he was in favour of Sydney or Auckland. But the point I want to make is this. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence or the most amateur strategist that it is no good having your strategical base where the attack is going to be delivered. It is much better to have it on the flank of any attack. Otherwise, we should have had our base
at Chatham or at the mouth of the Thames rather than at Scapa Flow.
I do not stand solely on Australian opinion to-night, but I think Australian opinion ought to be expressed in this matter. I am quite ready to allow there are several points of view from other Colonies. We have heard that South African opinion is not very much in favour of the Singapore base, but the point is that South Africa absolutely belongs to the Atlantic, and the Pacific is not of much importance to her one way or the other. So I think we can rule her out. The late Government flew in the teeth of Australian opinion when they put back the Singapore scheme. That was done at a time when Imperial matters with Australia were very touchy, and I think it was very ill-advised that the Singapore clock was put back by the late Government last year.
I have heard several Members to-night intimating that England is a warlike country. I do not think that is correct. We are not a warlike people. We have finished conquering the world for the good of the world, and, probably, hon. Members on both sides think we have sufficient of the earth's surface; we do not want quite so much, perhaps, as we have already got, and could do, perhaps, with a little less. Our plain, obvious duty, as I see it, to the men and women of the British Empire, is this: Keep what we have got, and keep those men and women out of the trouble of another war. No one yet in the history of the world has been any the worse for preparing for war when there is no sign of war on the horizon. We have heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty to-night that responsible Japanese opinion is not troubled at all about Singapore, but a point that has not been made in the House is that there are two other large Powers who have interests very much nearer Singapore than has Japan. France, on one side, has her possessions in Cochin China, and there are the Dutch possessions of Java on the other side. I have not noticed any unfavourable comments about Singapore in the French or in the Dutch papers. If Singapore were a menace, as some hon. Members ask us to believe, I am convinced we should have a good deal of trouble with both France and Holland on this question. On the other hand, our Navy is
undoubtedly our mast potent, almost—as some people would say—our only link with the Dominions. It is absolutely necessary for us to have somewhere to put that Navy in Australian waters. Hon. Members who happen to possess a Rolls-Royce do not let it stand out in the rain. They build a garage to put it in. We are building a garage at Singapore, in fact we want to improve the one there, so that we can keep our capital ships in it.
My last point is this: We all know that Australia is absolutely committed to a White Australian Policy. If Mr. Charlton got in to-morrow he would not be able, by any stretch of the imagination, to go back on that policy. The whole basis of that policy is to keep the North of Australia free- from coloured immigrants. There is no talk at present of Japan sending by force, or by any other means, people into those Northern territories, but what may happen in 10 or 15 years' time? Japan at the present moment is increasing her population at the rate of 400,000 per annum and these must go somewhere. I honestly hope, and believe, that they will go towards China, Korea and that way, but by force of circumstances they may be pushed down South. Then we shall see the value, of the defensive measures we may have adopted. I would appeal in conclusion to hon. Gentlemen opposite to go into this question, not from the Party point of view, but from the Imperial point of view, and then I imagine, or at least I hope, that they will come to the same conclusion that I have: that it is far better to give a gesture to our kith and kin than to give a gesture to some other nations who are problematical and not likely to be so friendly in the future.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has intervened in a Debate which must have a particular interest for him. I dare say that he has expressed the view that is taken by a very large proportion of the residents in Australia. I intervene because I have no desire to give a silent vote on this question. I perhaps occupy a position that is somewhat unique, being in this part of the House the Labour representative of a dockyard. I have followed the discussions on Thursday last, and that part which I have heard to-day, with the very keenest interest. With the
best will in the world I cannot support the Government. I think the Labour Government last year was justified in the action they took in regard to Singapore. I have heard no arguments advanced which would justify me in going into the Lobby against the Amendment which has been proposed from this side of the House. I want to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down that his kith and kin, and our kith and kin in Australia are in no more danger to-day, nor will
they be in any more danger 10 years hence, I believe, than they have been in bygone days. We have been assured that by hon. Gentlemen on the, opposite side that there is a menace; but as things are at the moment. I do not think that we are justified in entering upon a scheme such as we are asked to sanction here to-night. We have been assured by some that there is no danger in that part of the world; and there is likely to be no more danger in the future than in the past. We have got on well enough in the past without a very large naval base at Singapore, and if the assurances that we have been given from the Government side, and from the spokesmen of the Government, are to be relied upon—if there is no menace, if there is no enemy there against whom we need to prepare, then I consider that to undertake such an obligation in that part of the world would be a waste of money which cannot be afforded at the moment by the country.
We have been told that we are not committed to any expenditure this year, and do not require expending anything this year, that what will be expended this year has be-en given by the Colonies. What, however, we are determining here to-night is the sanctioning of a policy which is going to land us in very heavy expenditure for many years to come. That is what I am objecting to in this Debate. We will be committed to an expenditure of a very considerable number of millions of pounds. We know how this kind of expenditure tends to increase as the scheme develops. I represent the newest dockyard in this country—Rosyth. If hon. Members cast their minds back to the beginning of Rosyth, they will remember how the expenditure crept up, year after year, until we had there a very extensive dockyard. It is a very good dockyard. It is a model
dockyard. It is the safest dockyard in the United Kingdom. We saw, however, how the expenditure increased until what Rosyth Dockyard ultimately cost was out of all comparison to the original estimate. If we are going to have the same experience at Singapore, then we are committing this country to a very heavy expenditure indeed. We are told that battleships of 10,000 tons can be docked at Singapore at present. By the Washington Agreement we are committed to the construction of battleships of no greater dimensions than 10,000 tons.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 35,000 tons.

Mr. WATSON: Cruisers of 10,000 tons, and capital ships of 35,000 tons. In the past we have got on very well with Singapore as a clock capable of taking a ship of 10,000 tons, and I think we can go on in the future as we have gone on in the past, especially as we are not only hard up, so far as money is concerned, but have seen so many gestures in the direction of peace. I cannot understand the attitude taken up by some representatives of the dockyards on the other side. I wonder what the Government intend to do with the dockyards at home. The dockyard problem has been a serious one ever since the Washington Convention, which meant a very considerable reduction in the number of men employed in the Royal dockyards. I wonder whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to transfer a large number of men from the home dockyards to Singapore. I do not believe very many men will be transferred from the home dockyards to the dockyard at Singapore, so there is not much prospect of relief in that direction.
Then, we have had a movement in the past few years in the direction of peace. We have been asking for another Washington Conference, for a further limitation of armaments, and if we are to have that limitation, with another 10,000 men taken out of the dockyards of this country, as were taken out a year or two ago, we are creating a very serious problem indeed for the Admiralty. By and by it will come to this, that there will be nobody employed in the dockyards except the established men. That may be all right, but it means we shall have many fewer men in the dockyards at home than has been the case up to now. We have
heard from the other side of the House, both on Thursday and to-night, a demand for more battleships, and now they want another dockyard. In a week or two we shall have a demand for something off the Income Tax, or a reduction of other taxation. These things are very desirable—when we can get them all. It may be all right, when we have money to waste, to go on with the extension of the dock at Singapore, but at the moment we have not money to waste. We are in a most precarious condition, so far as our trade and commerce are concerned, and in some industries, at any rate, there is no prospect for the future.
If the mind of the country could be ascertained on this particular question, nothing is more sure than that an adverse decision would be given by the people. We have talked a great deal both to-night and on Thursday about the necessity for protecting our trade routes. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) said a few minutes ago, we will soon have no trade routes to protect. We used to have a considerable amount of trade between the North-East Coast of England and the East Coast of Scotland and Russia. A very considerable volume of trade went through the Baltic, and it was very necessary to protect that trade route a few years ago, but in a very short time we will have no trade there, and no need for battleships to protect that particular trade route. If our other trade routes are going to be affected in the same way, then we shall have less need for dockyards and for battleships than in the days gone by. So far as I am concerned, I have not heard a single argument which would justify me in supporting the Government in this proposal. I do not believe an extension of the docks at Singapore is necessary. We require to devote any money we can spend to improving things at home, in trying to get our trade re-established on a better foundation. There are many directions in which the money could be much more advantageously spent than in wasting it, as undoubtedly it will be wasted, on the creation of this base at Singapore.

Commander FANSHAWE: I should like to make a few remarks about the proposed base at Singapore. Members in all parts of the House will agree, I think, that it is necessary to give a reasonable
sense of security to our merchant ships bringing supplies to this country. In other words, I think all hon. Members will agree that we must protect our trade, and, as a large portion of our trade comes from the East, we must be quite sure that that is adequately protected. In days gone by when battleships were very much smaller than they are now, the docks at Singapore and Hong Kong were quite capable of looking after those ships. Since the War, however, the battleship has become five or six times as big, and therefore if it is necessary for battleships to look after that Eastern trade we must have adequate docking arrangements for them somewhere in the East.
At Washington we entered into a free discussion with all the nations of the world, except our old enemies, with a desire to limit naval armaments, and we came to an agreement. One part of that agreement stated that we were not to make any addition to our fortifications or naval bases east of longitude 110. Therefore, we cannot enlarge Hong Kong, and we must cast our eyes about to find somewhere in the East another base—if it is necessary to have battleships in the East—and the obvious place is Singapore, already a naval base and already capable of docking our cruisers, but not at present cauable of docking these large battleships. The question then arises, Is it necessary for us to have battleships in the East at all? We roust keep pace with foreign naval armaments. There is in the Pacific a strong Power with large battleships, and if it came to war, which everybody hopes it will not, we could not protect our trade in the East without employing our battleships. Therefore, we must have adequate docking arrangements at Singapore.
All the Government propose to do is to enlarge the naval base at Singapore by adding a floating dock, to take borings in case they want to go on with a graving dock, and to take anti-malarial precautions. It has been decided to spend a certain sum of money at Singapore. Hon. Members opposite have said that we are going to spend millions on this project, but I would like to ask where do they get their information? The sum that is going to be spent is £750,000, and £250,000 has been supplied by Hong Kong, and the latter sum is all the money which will be spent at Singapore this year. May I
point out that, quite apart from our trade routes, we have great Dominions such as Australia and New Zealand and Singapore to defend. These countries are exposed to a menace from the Pacific by any Power that has a battle fleet in those waters, and those countries are in favour of the establishment of a base at Singapore.
If we drew a line 1,400 miles around Singapore we should find that the circumference of that circle did not include Japan, but only two small Japanese possessions, although it would cover millions of square miles of British territory containing millions of British subjects. We cannot neglect the wishes of those millions of people with regard to their own protection. Hon. Members opposite are aware that the Australians will not allow yellow people to come into their country, and they are for an all white Australia. Of course, that is their affair, and one which we cannot interfere with. We have been told by my hon. Friend, himself an Australian, that if the Australian Labour leader came into power he would not be able to alter the policy of a white Australia. Supposing we were at war with a Power possessing a battle fleet in the Pacific, our cruisers could not stand the onslaught of those battleships. It is impossible for cruisers to fight battleships. You can only fight capital ships with other capital shins, and if our battle ships are not there, the enemy cruisers could come into the Indian Ocean followed by the enemy battleships.
Hon. Members will no doubt recollect the time when the "Emden" came into the Indian Ocean, and she was hunted down by 35 British and Allied cruisers, and eight light cruisers were told off as a hunting force for the "Emden," when she was destroyed by the "Sydney." Without the protection we are asking our commerce would be absolutely paralysed, and we should not be able to carry on in this country. Hon. Members opposite express a great regard for the British working men in this country, and they seemed to claim the working men as a monopoly for themselves; but they ought to remember that our raw material comes from countries over the seas, and we must be prepared to send our battleships to protect the ships carrying that raw material. Probably hon. Members opposite have overlooked one point. I ask
them to consider the whole matter again from the point of view of insurance. I think that is a very good point on which to test this matter. If any of us desire protection against fire or damage to a motor-car we insure our property, and if we did not insure and happened to lose it by fire or other causes what would our friends say to us? They would say, "Serve you right!" and I think it would serve us right in this country if we neglected an act of insurance like the establishment of this base at Singapore.
Take the figure which has been mentioned of £11,000,000 as the estimate of this expenditure and compare it with the trade coming from Eastern seas. That trade is worth one thousand million sterling per annum, so that, taking the cost of this insurance at £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, that is only one-tenth per cent., and in later years the cost of the upkeep of the Singapore base will be the premium paid, far less than that one-tenth per cent. of the trade. Therefore, I appeal to hon. Members opposite on the insurance basis only to alter their minds before it is too late, more especially when they consider that if we do not pay this paltry insurance of one-tenth per cent. the livelihood of the people of this country will be in danger.
Also I appeal to hon. Members from an Imperial point of view. Our people came overseas from Australia and New Zealand in thousands during the War and they are asking for the establishment of this base at Singapore. I have been over there myself, and I understand their point of view, and many hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion have not been there at all and consequently they do not view this question in the same light. I ask them to take a wider view of the needs of the Empire. I have asked them to look at it from the point of view of insurance, which, after all, is only a business point of view. I also ask them to listen to the voice of their fellow Britishers calling to them from across the ocean from Australia, and New Zealand.

Major PRICE: Rising to address the House for the first time I feel exceedingly diffident and nervous, but I am emboldened to get up by the well-known generosity of the House to those who speak for the first time. There was a
remark made by the last speaker from the Labour Benches with regard to the expense which we are going to be put to in connection with this naval base, and the hon. Member who made that remark likened it to the expense which grew and grew with regard to Rosyth. I would like to ask that when it came to the dreadful arbitrament of war was Rosyth worth it I think the hon. Member will agree that the answer must be in the affirmative because Rosyth was a tower of strength to us during the War and was one of the factors that enabled us to gain a victory upon the seas.
Another remark made in the course of this Debate, and one to which I take great exception was that hon. Members sitting on these benches look forward to war with complacency. That remark was also made by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and it was one which was not worthy of him. Some of us know what war means. I know what war was, not only from personal effort but from the far greater effort and the mental tragedy when one has ones own children in the fighting line. On that point we do not yield to a single hon. Member on the benches opposite, and I only wish to point out that war has never been won by weakness or vaccilation. I do not say that it has always been prevented by strength, but to suggest that the main objection is that we should be preventing a gesture for peace by enlarging a dockyard and bringing it up to modern requirements is a perfect fallacy. The proposal of this Government is that we should do that which is obvious, namely, bring the naval port of Singapore up to date. That is surely a common-sense measure and one that makes for efficiency, which is the cry of all parties with regard to the Navy.
I would ask hon. Gentlemen to look ahead a little bit. We know that in the future the aeroplane and air fighting is going to be developed, but we also know that it is in the narrow seas, in the channels around our coasts, in perhaps even the Mediterranean, that the future of the aeroplane is first of all to be developed. The orientation of our naval policy is bound to go into the wider seas. The question of naval strategy is bound to be in the Pacific in the future, because no aeroplane development can take place, so far as we can see, that will enable the aeroplane to operate over those wide
places in the Pacific Ocean. The defence of the country in that direction will depend on our naval forces and our naval forces cannot act without a base. The base is Singapore. Why should that be taken as something which is an unpacific attitude towards the countries in the East? We do not consider the increase of the forces of America or the increase of the naval strength of Japan as action hostile to ourselves. We recognise that these countries look to their own needs and requirements in order to formulate their naval policy. We look to our own needs and requirements to formulate our policy. We recognise that so far as this world is concerned we are dependent upon our Navy more than any other great nation. We realise that without the efficiency and the strength of our Navy our highways of Empire and our trade routes would be imperilled. It surely behoves us to consider whether we shall do what all democratic nations have to do, that is, rely upon their own strength even in preference to the good will of other nations. Hon. Members may say that you cannot rely upon your own strength. I say unless we do in the first instance rely on our own strength we are bound to go down in the long run.
It is obvious to anybody who considers the question for a few moments in a dispassionate attitude that to put upon the League of Nations a burden that it has not yet the strength to carry is the very first factor in the destruction of the usefulness of the League. The time has not yet come. You do not teach an infant to run before it can walk and you do not put on its shoulders a heavier burden than it can carry. The future of ourselves and our country depends upon whether we are prepared to shoulder the burden of Empire or whether we are not. The only two arguments which have been used to-day: the first from the Liberal Benches that we cannot afford it, and the other from the Labour Benches that it is not the right sort of gesture to make. As long as the world knows what our policy is—that it is a policy of peace and a policy which is determined to put first the guardianship of our own people and Empire—that is the greatest factor for peace that we can have. The speeches which we have heard, which have magnified out of all proportion this very simple naval act of bringing our
dockyard up to date, are the very worst speeches to put the nations upon the path of peace. If only right hon. Gentlemen opposite had treated this matter in the proportion in which they treated it last year it would have been very much better for the cause of peace. The late Prime Minister tried to deny to-day that the strategic position of Singapore was one which he favoured. If he will only look at his speech of last year, he will realise that he stated on that occasion that in all the wide spaces of the Pacific, Singapore was the most suitable strategic position for a naval base. I am certain that we shall never suffer from making clear what our naval policy in the Pacific is, but if we attempt to vacillate and twist and turn and have one policy to-day and another policy to morrow it will be taken as a sign of weakness, and instead of being a way of peace it will lead to war.

Sir B. FALLE: I have sat here since half-past three, and I propose, with the permission of the House, to say a few words on this matter. I listened to the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr W. M. Watson), who is a very great friend of mine on the Dockyard Committee, and he will not mind if I tell him the existing state of affairs at Singapore is still sufficiently good. Then I say he should be a Tory instead of a Labour man, and should come and sit on this side of the House. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) gave us a more interesting speech than previously. The present Colonial Secretary had said that Singapore protects the Indian Ocean and not the Pacific. If the right hon. Gentleman would only take a big map, as the late Lord Salisbury said, he would see that Singapore does protect the Indian Ocean and not the Pacific in the same way. Should we have won the War, and should we have been able to feed our people, if we had not been able to 'keep the trade routes open; if we had not been able to bring the thousands and thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who volunteered to come and help the old country, not to speak of Canadians and Indians? They were some of the finest fighters we had in France and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman was also rather proud of starting a new hare in that the dockyard of Singapore should, at a
pinch, be allowed to take the Mercantile Marine. He seemed to think that was an entirely new idea. In Portsmouth, which is rather an important dockyard, the Admiralty have always been willing to allow mercantile ships to use the floating dock. Several Canadian Pacific vessels have only recently been docked in the Admiralty floating dock. The only stipulation the Admiralty make, and it is a fair one, is that in 25 hours' notice the mercantile ship must move out of the floating dock if that floating dock is required by the naval authorities.
I listened to-day and on Thursday to every word the Leader of the Opposition said, and he said two things with which I thoroughly agreed. He said that he wished this matter could be left to a free vote of the House. Personally, I should be perfectly prepared to see it left to a free vote of the House, and I have not the faintest doubt as to which way the vote would go. The right hon. Gentleman also said that, if you are going to make these changes at Singapore, you are going to make a Portsmouth of Singapore, and if you do that it will be of little use. The strange thing is that I agree with him, because one very important thing, of which I think only a comparatively few Members of this House are aware, is that there is not a single dock at Portsmouth or Devonport that will take a capital ship. It would, therefore, be no use building docks at Singapore to rival the clocks at Portsmouth. Short of Rosyth, there is not a single Government dock that will take a capital ship at the present moment. Charity begins at home, and I believe that, if we are going to spend this money in making docks at Singapore which will take a battleship, we ought first to make in dock, say, at Devonport, and one at Portsmouth, which will take capital ships.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: What about Pembroke?

Sir B. FALLE: There is no room there for a capital ship.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is the finest harbour in the world.

Sir B. FALLE: It is no use having the finest harbour in the world if there is not room for a capital ship. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the
cruisers would be of greater value than the dock, but a cruiser without a dockyard is of very little use indeed. To build big ships which cannot be docked is not efficiency, and it is not economy. It is like an army which, as is the case with ours at the present moment, has no striking force whatever for weeks. We must not forget that, unless we can improve the docks at Singapore, we cannot send a capital ship into the Indian Ocean, and if our capital ships cannot go into the Indian Ocean we are making no proper use of our Navy. The Leader of the Opposition said that all he wanted was to hold what we have got. We all agree with that, but the great trouble is that it is no use waiting until we see the cloud on the horizon. That, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, is not the moment to insure. In a memorable speech he said that, when you hear the rafters cracking and see the fire leaping through the roof, that is not the moment to insure. There is no question that he was perfectly right. You want to insure before the fire, and not afterwards.
The Leader of the Opposition also said that the Government should have a watchful and vigilant eye on all foreign developments, and then no real troubles could come forward without our seeing them. I should like to remind the House that in 1870, a fortnight before the Franco-German War broke out, our then Foreign Secretary, a man of very great ability, told us that there was not a cloud on the horizon. We can hardly hope to form a dock at Singapore inside a fortnight. When the right hon. Gentleman says that we want to hold what we have got, is not that a little bit of conscious rectitude, considering that we and the other English-speaking nations practically hold the world in fee? Because we hold everything we want, and everything we think is necessary for us, we want other nations to keep quiet and not take it from us. There are Gentlemen on the other side of the House who say that there are so many rich people in this England of ours that we want to take from them some of what they have got.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going rather far from Singapore.

Sir B. FALLE: It has been asked repeatedly, who is the enemy? I deprecate, as strongly as anyone can, the idea that we should mention any nation or nations as our possible or probable enemies, but if we look at the map from the common-sense, human point of view, we see the Dutch East Indies unprotected; we see the great island of New Guinea, one of the largest in the world, unprotected; we see the islands of New Zealand unprotected; we see that great island continent of Australia unprotected, and with a very small population indeed. We see to the northward of it a nation of 70 millions, with a large overspill, and we—the nations of Europe and the United States—are preventing that nation from colonising in Manchuria. We only want to look at things of this kind to see what must happen. On the other hand, if we cross the Pacific

Ocean and come to our own blood in the United States, we see to the north of them one of the greatest countries in the world, with only one-twelfth of their population, and we see Mexico to the south of them. We remember that the United States are peopled very largely with people of our own blood, and they are the hungriest earth-seekers in the world. We only want to use common sense and a little human judgment to see what must happen—[An HON. MEMBER: "Will happen!"]—or will happen, if nothing is done. If we cannot protect our own people, if we cannot protect our own possessions, the end is certain. We shall see them taken from us, and we shall deserve that they should be taken from us.

Question put, "That '£2,588,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 129.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[9.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer-
Gee, Captain R.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Goff, Sir Park


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, G. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Viscountess
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grace, John


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grant, J. A.


Atkinson, C.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cooper, A. Duff
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope, Major William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Couper, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel John


Balniel, Lord
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter F


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bennett A. J.
Crook, C. W.
Hanbury, C.


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briggs, J. Harold
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Drewe, C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elveden, Viscount
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Homan, C. W. J.


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fermoy, Lord
Huntingfield, Lord


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fielden, E. B.
Hurd, Percy A.


Campbell, E. T.
Fleming, D. P.
Hurst, Gerald B


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Murchison, C. K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Col.Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Jacob, A. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


James Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Storry Deans, R.


Jephcott, A. R.
Nuttall, Ellis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lamb, J. Q.
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Loder, J. de V.
Perring, William George
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Philipson, Mabel
Waddington, R.


Lougher, L.
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pilcher, G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Remer, J. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


MacIntyre, Ian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, S. R.


McLean, Major A.
Rice, Sir Frederick
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Macmillan, Captain H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Macquisten, F. A.
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Margesson, Captain D.
Rye, F. G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R. Ripon)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Savery, S. S.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Harry Barnston.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smithers, Waldron



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Palin, John Henry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Connolly, M.
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Smillie, Robert


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mackinder, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, T. W.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, R. H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.




Tinker, John Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Varley, Frank B.
Westwood, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Viant, S. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Windsor, Walter


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.


Warne, G. H.
Wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T. Kennedy.


Second Resolution read a Second time.

REPORT [16th March.]

Resolutions reported,

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 160,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."

VOTE ON ACCOUNT.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for defraying the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, viz.:—


Heads of Cost.
Amount required.



£


Head I.—Maintenance of Standing Army
9,000,000


Head II.—Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
2,000 000


Head III.—Educational, etc., Establishments and Working Expenses of Hospitals, Depots, etc.
2,000,000


Head IV.—War Office, Staff of Commands, etc.
500,000


Head V.—Capital Accounts
800,000


Head VI.—Terminal and Miscellaneous Charges, etc.
700,000


Head VII.—Half-pay, Retired pay, Pensions, etc.
2,000,000


Total to be voted
17,000,000"

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to move to leave out "£17,000,000," and to insert instead thereof "£16,999,900."
Remarkable as these Estimates have been in many ways, perhaps the most remarkable speech has been the complete metamorphosis of the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). Last year, as Secretary of State for War, the duty devolved upon him of introducing the Army Estimates. He was conscious of
the fact that the amount of the Estimates was a good deal higher than he thought they ought to be, and on that occasion he defended his position in these words:
In putting forward the Estimates for the Army this year I would point out to the House that the general form of these Estimates had been prepared before I received the seals of office, and represent almost wholly the policy of my predecessor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2613, Vol. 170.]
That was an understandable position. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to reconcile his past professions with his duty at the moment in introducing the Estimates. What has happened this year? When the Secretary of State for War introduced his Estimates, standing practically where they stood last year, without any reduction or, at any rate, without any appreciable reduction, the right hon. Member for Ince congratulated him in the words:
I am quite sure the whole House has listened with real interest to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who now has charge of the very high Department which I had the misfortune recently to vacate. With almost the whole of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman I find myself in agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1925; col 1895, Vol. 181.]
The effect of high office upon the right hon. Gentleman has been to cause him to change his attitude entirely, apparently, on the question of armaments. I can only hope that the view expressed by him on this occasion does not represent the view of the majority of his party.
How use doth breed a habit in a man.
It is clear that he has taken his views from the office which he held, and that he is quite ready to accept suggestions from it as a cat laps milk. For my own part, I can find very little in these Estimates which affords one satisfaction. There was a good deal in the speech of the Minister that one could not but view with alarm. He said, in recommending the Estimates to the House, that we were now in a position to compare one year with another, that we had got rid of the
War aftermath, and that the reductions in establishment have been made. The Minister, no doubt, is at present looking forward to Estimates being introduced year by year at somewhat about the same figure as they have been introduced this year, and that the taxpayers of this country are to look forwaard to an amount of £45,000,000 a year being spent upon the Army alone. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) last week, said that the Government intended to pursue the policy of disarmament, and that he was glad of the opportunity of stating afresh the fact that they intended to pursue that policy. To judge from these Estimates, I do not know whether the Prime Minister has communicated that view to the Secretary of State for War.
We have listened during the past weeks to appeals made, even from hon. Members opposite, for the granting of more money for the purpose of social reform. Appeals have been made for money for widows' pensions, for the provision of pensions for men under 70 years of age, for the improvement of educational facilities, and even last week an appeal was made from hon. Members on the opposite benches for an extended grant to enable young boys and girls to have a proper start in life. Money cannot be provided for these purposes if we are to continue spending the sums we are now spending upon the Army and the other armed forces of the Crown.
The Minister spoke of these Estimates as an insurance against war. The best form of insurance against war and the best form of insurance that any country can have is moral insurance. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. They doubt that. If they examine the history of any State, they will find that the progressive, first of all, becomes moral, then it becomes intelligent, and then it becomes rich. The decaying State first of all becomes immoral, then it becomes stupid, and then it becomes poor. The best form of insurance, clearly, is a form of moral insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "1914!"] Yes, 1914. The best insurance then was the moral insurance of this country. If you had not had moral insurance in this country in 1914 you would
never have raised the army of millions that you did raise for the War.
It is idle to pretend that armaments are a form of insurance against war in any country. They form in every country the policy of the Government in time of peace. There is a tragic element in the position where millions of money are spent by a country upon armaments, and then millions more are paid to statesmen and diplomatists to prevent those armaments being used, while every Government argues in favour of its own armaments, that its own armaments are harmless, and that the armaments of every other Power are highly dangerous.
Earth is sick
And Heaven is weary of the hollow words
Which States and Kingdoms utter when they talk
Of truth and justice.
If this is to be a form of insurance, against whom are we insuring and for what purpose are we 'insuring? The reason of 1914 we can understand. Is it suggested that an expeditionary force will be required in Europe such as was required in 1914? If so, against whom? There is no danger of that from any part of Europe for the next generation. It will be better for this country, and better, even, for war purposes, that the money that is now being proposed to be spent upon armaments should be saved in order to build up anew the resources of the country, physically and industrially, and that the money saved in that way should be available in a generation to come for your armament purposes if they are found to be necessary.
Of course, there are obstacles, and there are obstacles in the way of this reduction. There is the obstacle of the vested interest of the military class. I can quite understand the vehement objection put forward by those who are interested if it is suggested that a profession is to lose any prestige. I can understand the objection of a military commander if it is suggested that his unit is to be depleted. That is one of the most serious objections to a decrease in armaments at the present moment, but that should not be allowed to stand in the way of the development of the nation. Of course, there is another class of objector who, when any suggestion is made about
decreasing the Army, begins to prophesy that the Empire is going to the dogs. That prophecy does not alarm us very much, because we know that in a fortnight the same prophet will be saying that the Empire is going to the same dogs for a very different reason. The demand for economy at present is quite overwhelming, and one would have hoped that economy would at least have had an ally in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the past record of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point is not very reassuring.
There is one particular at least in which I think the right hon. Gentleman resembles Napoleon. It is said that one use Napoleon had for reading the Old Testament was to study the campaigns of Moses with the aid of a map. Judging by the writings of the right hon. Gentleman when he does open the Bible—apparently he does so only at random—he opens it in the place which registers the exploits of the sons of Anak. That is not a very reassuring record for one who has charge of the finance of the country, and one would wish that someone with a better peace record than the right hon. Gentleman had charge of the finance of the country. One cannot expect a raven to hatch a lark. If they are to spend money on armaments surely the sum of £45,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend on the Army is waste of money from the point of view of armaments itself. A little time back we had the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air complaining in this House that the Treasury would not grant him sufficient money to enable him to keep the Air Force an efficient force in comparison with the standards obtaining in other countries, and that an Air Force in any future war will be of far greater importance than the Army. That is the trend of development. If you are going to make your armed force efficient then the money should be saved upon the least important and devoted to the more important arm of the Crown. In this way the money would be saved from the Army and devoted to the purposes of the Air Force.
In these Estimates a great deal of money is being spent upon the least important sections of the Army. For instance, I see that it is proposed to
spent this year a sum of £1,308,400 upon the cavalry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," but what use was cavalry in the last War? The greater part of this money is going to be spent for ceremonial purposes. When the industry of the country is being handicapped, when the right hon. Gentleman, in the memorandum which he has circulated with these Estimates, shows that the physical condition of the population of this country is such that 55 per cent. of those who applied for admission to the Army were rejected as unfit, it is time that some of the money devoted to preparations for the destruction of life should be used for building up the life of the nation.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a moral responsibility in this matter, that all the resources at this moment at the command of the Treasury shall be utilised for one purpose and one purpose alone—restoring the industries of the country and building up its population. How is it suggested that that can be done? By keeping up the Estimates for the Army to £45,000,000 and looking forward not to a reduction but to the maintenance of expenditure on this level. The taxpayers of this country cannot afford this handicap. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government have professed over and over again that they are in favour of world peace, and in favour of taking every step to bring peace about. So far the only thing which we know of their record in international peace is the piling up of armaments. They have rejected the Protocol, and every attempt which has been made so far to bring about an international understanding has been turned down. They have brought forward as yet no plan of their own except one of piling up armaments. We cannot have this remedy if this expenditure is allowed to be continued.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have been spending several hours this afternoon discussing the Singapore base in relation to the Navy Estimates, and we are now going to consider the Report Stage of the Army Estimates. I would like at this point to remark how impossible it is to consider the Estimates for one arm of the Services alone. Each
must be considered in connection with the other two arms. I will try not to go too far off the point, but I hope that I may be permitted, in discussing the Army Estimates, to refer at least to the Estimates for the Air and the Navy. The total Estimates which we are asked to vote this year is £120,500,000, of which the Army accounts for £44,500,000. I would ask hon. Members, to put these figures into their true perspective, to cast their minds back to the Estimates that were prepared for the year 1913–14. At that time the total Defence Estimates were £86,000,000, of which the Army accounted for £35,000,000, so that we have now an increase of 39½ per cent. That is not all, because there is £3,000,000 to be accounted for, by the Colonial Office, for the defence of Iraq and the Air Force, and there is the unknown quantity for cruisers and the unknown quantity for Singapore.
I am not going to enlarge upon that beyond saying that to my mind it is a scandal that Estimates of this character should be presented in unknown quantities and with unknown commitments. As far as one can realise, the charges will not be 39½ per cent. in excess of those for 1913–14, but will come to nearer 50 per cent. That is an enormous increase, but I admit that there are the increased cost of materials and the increased pay of the personnel to be taken into consideration. That, however, does not account for the whole difference. Circumstances to-day are widely different from what they were in 1913–14. May I for a moment be allowed to draw comparisons between the state of affairs then and that which exists to-day. At that time trade was good, and our National Debt amounted to £650,000,000; to-day our trade, unfortunately, is in a very parlous condition, as we know, but I am afraid that this House and the country do not realise in what a serious position our trade is. Our National Debt, instead of being £650,000,000, is £7,650,000,000. We are honourably discharging debts that we owe to our War pensioners; we are paying enormous sums to help our unemployed over times of difficulty; and we are undertaking enormous commitments for the housing of our people. Before the War the taxation was something like £4 10s. a head; to-day it is £17 a head.
The conditions are entirely different. In those days we had a turbulent and dangerous Ireland. More than that, there was the menace of Germany hanging over the whole of Europe. To-day we are in a time of profound peace, when the whole of Europe is looking for peaceful methods for settling international difficulties, when France has offered the Protocol and President Coolidge is looking towards a reduction of armaments. Yet it is this moment that the Government choose for the first time since the War to increase the cost of armaments. It cannot be too clearly understoood by this House and by the country that this is the first time since the War that the Government is making a definite attempt in the Estimates to increase the cost of armaments.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Can the hon. Member tell us what the Army Estimates were in 1920?

Sir R. HAMILTON: In 1920, of course, they were enormous, but that was just after the War. The Secretary of State for War has taken credit to himself for a decrease of £500,000 in the Army Estimates, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) pointed out, if you take into account the terminal charges there is really an increase of £170,000. The Secretary for War went a step further into the accounts and pointed to the war stores, and by digging into the war stores heading he showed that there was really a decrease of £200,000 or £300,000. He is taking credit to himself for a decrease of £200,000 or £300,000. What we want is a decrease of millions in these Estimates. I am not a pacifist in the sense that some hon. Members are.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is why you are so logical.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I am not a pacifist in the sense that some of my hon. Friends of the Labour party are. I give them full credit for the way in which they tackle this question, but I realise that in the imperfect world in which we exist we must have defensive forces. Admitting that, I say that the defensive force that we do have must be suited to our political needs and to our financial capacity to pay for it. We must have regard to the state of the world in which we are living and the state of our own pocket to
pay for our defensive force. The Secretary for War and, I think, also the First Lord said these defence forces were a necessary insurance. That is no argument, and it is no explanation for an Estimate of £44,500,000. It would be equally applicable if the Estimate were £88,000,000. Why are we asked to pay a higher premium when the combustible material has been removed out of Europe? If a war were menacing us at the present time it might be reasonable to ask for a higher premium, but in these times of peace it seems entirely unreasonable.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: There was peace in July, 1914.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The First Lord of the, Admiralty quoted Latin to show the dangers of extreme parsimony. I am not going to vie with the First Lord in quoting Latin, but I will give him an English proverb against his Latin one, and it is
Cut your coat according to your cloth.
To that I would add
See that you get good value for your money.
That is what we have to do in connection with these Estimates. I think we are all agreed as to the functions which our Army should exercise. In the first place, it must be sufficient for our needs in defence; it must be small, highly-efficient and economically run, and there must be the means and the power to dispatch it speedily wherever it is required in case of need. In that connection, I should like to ask what is going to be the effect in the future of the existence of the new force—the Air Force—upon our Army and upon the Army Estimates? We are entitled to have some clear views from the Government on this point. Are we to have in future, in connection with the Air Force, an expanding Estimate independent of the Estimates for the Army and Navy, or is the Air Force to give relief by providing defence which is at present provided by the Army? We ought to have a much clearer exposition on that point than we have so far received.
The Air Force has a personnel of 36,000, which is a considerable total compared with the personnel of the Army. I notice that a point made by the Mover of this Amendment in reference to cavalry was
received with some laughter on the other side of the House. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but I ask myself what is the use of maintaining 12,000 cavalry. [An HON. MEMBER: "To amuse the children!"] It may amuse the children, but I am dealing with more serious matters. Some years ago the War Office got into hot water because of a famous telegram, "Mounted men not wanted." Apparently they have not forgotten the lesson of that occasion and are hanging on to the mounted men in spite of the advance which has been made in our capacity to move troops by motor transport. It seems to me the cavalry is an antiquated arm, but, as I say, I am not an expert. We should like, however, a definite pronouncement on that point from the Secretary for War. Is it intended that our Army shall include a large cavalry arm in the future? The House and the country ought to know the intentions of the Government in this matter.
I observe that the total personnel has been reduced by 900 men, but I am astonished that this reduction has been accompanied by an increase in expenditure of £54,000 on War Office and Command staffs. The two figures do not seem to tally. If we reduce our personnel slightly why should the cost of running the personnel go up? The sum is not a very large one, but is part of a very large total, and in this connection I may remind the House that before the War the staff of the War Office numbered 2,800 people. To-day it is 4,319. Was the Army efficiently run by the War Office before the War? I am sure there is not a single hon. Member who would not say that it was efficiently run before the War. Why should it not then to-day be equally efficiently run by a smaller staff To my mind, it is ridiculous to say you are anxious for economy when swollen staffs like this are kept, without any special justification. I say that, because I asked the Secretary of State for War the other night for an explanation, and he said there was a large amount of correspondence. Do we not know what an amount of correspondence the War Office goes in for, and would it not be a great deal better with 50 per cent. of that correspondence cut off? It costs no less than £15 a man of the personnel, that correspondence! I often wonder why it
is that soldiers are so fond of correspondence. I suppose it is that when they have no further use for their swords they stab at one another with their pens. It is all very well to say that our country is pacific. It was a sentiment that was cheered to the echo in this House the other night. We know that our intentions are pacific, but it is a curious evidence of that to the outside world if our defence expenses go up in the way they are doing. I say that there has been no justification for these Estimates. We know that our country is being bled white at the present time. We know what a state our industry is in. We see our premier industry, shipbuilding, losing to Germany, and I would ask: Is Germany any less secure to-day for having no Air Force, no submarines, and only a small Army? She is no less secure in Europe, but she has a handicap over us in the race now through not having to carry the load that we are carrying. That must be remembered. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to utter the prayer that he did utter, in which we all join, that there should be peace in industry, but how can there be peace in industry when the industry cannot earn sufficient to pay the wages that the men deserve and which the employers would like to pay them? I think it would have been a more practical move on the part of the Prime Minister had he attempted to take some of the sand of taxation out of the wheels of the machine. It is because I consider these Estimates are not commensurate either with the political needs of the moment or with our financial capacity to meet them that I heartily second the Motion for their reduction.

Mr. LAWSON: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment. During the passage of the Estimates in this House, and much more so in the Press outside, considerable attention has been drawn to the paragraph in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War dealing with the unemployed and recruiting. It says:
Unemployment does not, as before the War, help recruiting. The unemployed are now entitled to State benefit, which is apparently preferred in many cases to the full support and the liberal pay which Army service yields.
Whatever the intentions of the Government are in regard to unemployment benefit, there is not the slightest doubt that there is a widespread movement in the Press to attack the unemployed man who is receiving benefit, and one of the first things that the Press did was to use this as a handle for a further attack upon the unemployed man, and in doing that I think that they have not only, consciously or unconsciously, done a wrong to the unemployed man, but, I believe, to the Army, and to the cause they have at heart. I say, frankly, for myself, if the unemployment benefit has given men any little independence, so that those who are not desirous of enlisting do not now become unwilling soldiers, then I welcome the unemployment benefit, which gives men such independence. To force men into the Army, or to build up an Army in such a, way, is not to have a voluntary Army. Those men will not be volunteers; they will be pressed men. They will be victims of a kind of surreptitious conscription, and I agree with the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle)—I agree it is far better to have fair and open service which would apply also to the gilded youth, who has his bonus or dole which he calls an income, as well as to the poor man. I think it would be a very good thing if some of the gentlemen we see knocking about, and of whom we read sometimes, could be put in the tender arms and under the fatherly care of the average sergeant-major. It would do some of the gentlemen of independent income, and who do no work, a great deal of good. They would then be able to appreciate the conditions and the position of your Empire.
I think this paragraph is altogether misleading. I do not say it is consciously misleading, but I think it is misleading, because the one thing that is pointed out in the paragraph is that more men are needed this year, because an abnormal number of men were being demobilised. There are 7,500 men who are prematurely terminating their engagement, and that means, if you have an abnormally large number of men going out in any particular year, then you need an abnormal number of men coming in to fill the gap. What the position really then is is that the normal
number of recruits have come in to meet the normal position, but the right hon. Gentleman and his staff have not got exactly all they want. I want him also to inquire into this fact which has some connection with what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has been dealing with: I speak of the Air Service, which is now quite independent of the Army. The officers and non-commissioned officers have a certain status. It is undoubtedly a competitor with the Army, if not a rival. It has a personnel of something like 36,000 men, and that personnel is increasing. There is also the fact that you have not now got the South of Ireland to draw upon as you had in the past. The position it seems to me is quite clear. What are the real demands? With a less population to be drawn upon you have a greater demand. Therefore, I think you can hardly expect all the time, in the case of a voluntary army, to have the ever-increasing number of men that you desire in any given year.
Look at this other point. The right hon. Gentleman stated to the House the very sad fact that five out of every eight men who attempted to enlist were refused. I think, however, that that ought to be qualified by the fact that the standard of enlistment is higher now than last year. Almost every year since the close of the War the standard of enlistment has gone up. It seems to me, therefore, that an impression has been created by the paragraph to which I refer in the Memorandum which has done harm and led, unintentionally no doubt, to an attack on the unemployed men. If we on this side have to choose between the unemployed man and the Army we are going to defend the unemployed man. I trust that nothing that the War Office does, or any of the other services, issue in this line will strengthen the forces outside that are inclined to snarl at these decent men who, at any rate, have the right to be defended because of the sad circumstances under which they have been called to live.
There is another point in the Estimates and a very interesting one to me. These men seem to be fairly well fed and well clothed. I come across this fact which seems to have been overlooked by hon. Members, but which, I am sure, will be of considerable interest. It shows, whatever hon. Members may say, that there
has not been much waste in this Department. In the bakery department you have actually bread produced at something under 2d. per lb. You have a 4-lb. loaf which is something like 7d. When you have stated what a business place would set out in their accounts for overhead charges, etc., and after accounting for everything fairly generously, you have bread made by the Army Department to the extent of £170,000, at less than 2d. per lb., and distributed to them at 4d. less than the average loaf is sold in this country to-day. I wonder if that fact has been laid before Sir Auckland Geddes and the Food Commission. Has the Contracts Department, which supplies food to the Army, been asked to give evidence before the Food Commission? I think it could give very interesting evidence. If this ease is any indication, I venture to say that the critics of Government Departments, with all their difficulties and shortcomings, would be confounded, and it would probably be shown that even the easygoing Army does things much more efficiently than some of the business people who supply meat and food to the people of this country.
The other point I wish to raise is in connection with vocational training in the Army. Vocational training is one of the things for which I, and I think my colleagues too, have a particular affection. By virtue of our training, we love the things which are tending to make men civilians. In the past history of the Army, one of the criticisms passed upon it by civilians was that a man went into the Army, spent seven, nine, twelve or up to twenty years with it, and when he left it found that he was almost hopeless from the point of view of finding ordinary work in civilian life. The Army has hitherto been a kind of blind alley. Men who left it were often at a disadvantage, and in the labour market as it exists to-day they would suffer an extra disadvantage. Now we find the Army is making a fairly successful experiment in vocational training. No one who goes to Hounslow or Catterick and sees the soldier being trained there, partly as a soldier and partly as a civilian, being instructed in agrculture, in carpentry, in shoemaking and many other occupations, and who talks with the men, can fail to become enthusiastic about this particular
branch of the work of the Army. I myself saw the 20 men and their families to whom the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and I thought it worth while to come to town to see the men part of the way, at any rate, on their journey.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Hear, hear!

Mr. LAWSON: One had seen them at their work and learned to know most of them. This is a work which one cannot commend too much. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is the relationship between the vocational training schemes of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Do they compare their experience? Does one learn of the other? Further, I would like to ask what is being done about the Catterick scheme? It seemed to us and to those in command there—and I think there was a good deal of reason for it—that there is a danger in regard to the training ground being expanded. I trust that any difficulty of that kind is going to be forestalled by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, because certainly the Army and the country cannot afford to let a scheme like this suffer. I think it should be developed. I think this experiment may even have its lessons for civilian life as well as industrial life when the experiment is completed, and so I trust that everything is going to be done to develop that scheme under which the soldiers in their last six months of service are trained to be civilians so that they will stand a decent chance in the ordinary labour market.
I want to spend a moment or two upon the points raised in regard to our position as the Labour party. That position has been explained continuously in this House. Some hon. Members have a particular outlook, but when I look at the world as it is to-day, I confess that their point of view has some attractions in it. Who is there amongst those who have lived through the experience of this generation who, in their hearts, would not fail to be attracted by the vision which some hon. Members have. On this matter the Labour party's position is quite clear in reference to armaments and disarmaments.
In the last Government we took definite steps to bring about what is known as the Protocol, and we tried to bring Russia into the comity of nations. That policy may have been right or it may have been wrong, but we think it was right. Everybody knows that as long as that great nation remains outside the comity of nations armaments will be determined by their attitude towards the rest of the world. We all know that the Liberal party combined with the Conservative party to turn out the Labour party, and they did not carry out the Treaty with Russia, and by doing that they committed this country to following a path which may lead some day to even the Liberal party supporting and asking for more than an Army of 160,000 soldiers. While I have considerable sympathy with anyone who criticises the Army Estimates or the Estimates of the Air Force or the Naval Estimates I do demur from the criticisms passed upon the late Prime Minister in this respect, because as far as this party is concerned we did all that visionaries and idealists and people who believe in principles could do to reduce those Estimates, and we gave proof of the faith that was in us. If to-day we are in a position in which we cannot drastically criticise the provision of 160,000 men for the Army, it is because of a combination of two parties in this House that broke the Labour Government, and this country has been compelled to take a course which almost makes it inevitable to ask for the number of soldiers which are being voted to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We have listened, or at least I have listened, with the greatest interest to the Debates which have taken place upon the Service Estimates. There can be no doubt that they prove that all parties are anxious for peace, but, of course, there is a considerable difference in the way in which we think it is desirable to prepare for peace. There are some of us who believe that the best thing to do is to scrap our armaments entirely, and I have the greatest sympathy with some Members on the other side, who from their own experience of war are determined that no longer shall war come. But their arguments rather remind me of the story which is told of a very earnest pacifist who was determined that his children, at any rate, should not
be misguided enough to play with tin soldiers, and he went out of his way to find for them emblems in tin of town councillors and firemen. He presented boxes of these substitutes for militarism to his children. He went away happily to his business that day, quite confident that his boys would not turn out to be militarists. He came back to find a violent battle going on between the town councillors and the firemen. It is not armaments that make for war; it is the evil spirit that permeates nations, and so long as that spirit exists it is perfectly clear that the scrapping of armaments or even the reducing of armaments is not going to bring us peace. It is clear too from the lessons of the last war that it is the nation that is most prepared in peace for peace pursuits that can the most easily turn itself into an army when the time comes. Therefore, I am not certain that a gesture which would at once do away with our armaments would really make for the peace of the world.
When I come to consider the arguments produced by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, it seems to me we have reached the last stage in futility. They both confessed they knew nothing about the subject on which they were speaking. I do not believe that their arguments are going to influence the House in the very least, nor do I believe the statement made by one hon. Member that what was stopping the reduction of the Army in this country was the vested interests and the military class. The military class is the very last class that wants another war. What we are looking for now—and I rank myself as among the military class to-night—in the Army Estimates is whether the defensive preparations we are making are sound and the money which is to be voted is to be expended in the proper way Hon. Gentlemen opposite who apparently are ignorant of such matters are always telling us that the Army has ceased to exist and that the Air Force has taken its place. They may be right, but at the present moment the War Office cannot say that they are right. The last persons, therefore, to suggest a rapid decrease in the Army Estimates must be the War Office. They are responsible for the upkeep of the Army, and when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) the other night naively ask, "What does the Army exist for?" After the lessons of the late War my spirit sank within me, I wondered what has become of the great Liberal party. It is too ridiculous to suppose that anyone who is responsible for the maintenance of the defence of this country can scrap the Army because the Air Force may prove to be a, substitute for it.
Statesmen have decided, and I think they have decided rightly, that we ought not to be faced with a great war for some 10 or 15 years, but when an hon. Gentleman tells us that we are now in a period of profound peace, I, for one, can only say that I wish he were right. Europe is an armed camp. Europe is far more armed to-day than it was before 1914. We have to see that we have a defence force which, should the occasion arise, will be able to be expanded into a great army. Heaven forbid that such an occasion should arise, bat when I look at the present situation, and ask myself whether the War Office are doing right now, I say that, on the whole, they are. They are preparing a small striking force. They are seeing, as the Estimates show, that that striking force shall be well armed, well trained and of adequate mobility. But we are in a very dangerous state. Do not let the House think otherwise. Should we be suddenly faced with the necessity of sending abroad a division, or it might be two divisions, we should be very hard pressed to do it.
The question we have to ask ourselves to-night is whether we are spending enough money on the Army, and whether the money that is being spent is being spent in the right direction. I personally am very nervous at the present moment about the Army Reserve, but I welcome the decision of the Secretary of State to make the Territorial Army into our first-line reserve. I know that the Territorial Army, as it exists to-day, is neither strong enough nor well trained enough to start forth to war at a moment's notice, but I believe that, if the suggestions the Secretary of State has put forward in his Estimates, are carried out, and if the House approves of strengthening Army Reserve A, then we shall be prepared for any emergency that is likely to arise within the next few years. I must, however, express the hope that the Secretary
for War, when he is making the Territorial Army into the main part of the defence force of the country, when he is making it, as it may be, the first line of Reserve, he will do all that he can to encourage the Territorial Army. It wants money spent on it, and it wants a great interest taken in it. The Army authorities must remember that Territorial soldiers are not, and never will be, the same as Regular soldiers. I would suggest that in the future the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to place an officer representing the Territorial Army on the Army Council. It is high time that the Territorials were given every opportunity to develop on the right lines.
I have tried, in the few words that I have addressed to the House to-night, to chow that, because on this side of the House we believe that the situation is such that we cannot do without an Army, we are not militarists in the sense in which some of our opponents on the other side appear to believe. All of us who took part in the Great War are determined that in our time, if we can possibly prevent it, there will be no more war; but we know that, so long as other countries do not respond to the gesture that we are so ready to make, this country must be prepared to stand or fall by its own resources. We believe that the Army must be kept up at least to its present strength until it is proved that the Air Force can take its place.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) proposes to
reduce this Vote by £100. That is a pretty definite proposal. It is about the only definite thing that has been said on behalf of it either by the Mover or the Seconder of the Amendment. I simply cannot understand the position of the Liberal party on the question of disarmament. I can perfectly understand the position of the pacifist who would abolish all armies and all means of defence or offence and uses a theoretical and abstract argument in favour of disarmament of that character, but I deny the right of anyone to use a theoretical, abstract argument for disarmament unless he is prepared to go to that extent. The Liberal Members who are supporting
the Amendment believe that there is a point at which the defence of the country must stand and should not be reduced. They believe that there must be effective and efficient defence for the country. That rules out entirely the position of a theoretical argument in favour of disarmament. What you have to do, it seems to me, if you believe in efficient defence, is to show specific cases where disarmament can be safely adopted and prove your case. The only people who have a right to argue in favour of disarmament without doing that are the pacifists, who have a perfectly logical position to uphold. I am not a pacifist. I believe there is a necessity for the maintenance of efficient national defence. I disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last in his enthusiasm for a regular Army. If there is to be national defence it is the right and duty of every person fit to undertake defence to be part of the defensive forces. I do not believe in conscription for the regular Army. I do not believe in a professional Army at all, but I certainly say everyone should be trained to arms if you are prepared at all to argue for the necessity of a defence of the country by any military force whatever. That seems to me to be a logical position, and I am supported in the logic of that position by my pacifist friends. I have been told over and over again by my pacifist friends that the logic of any kind of armament whatever and any kind of national defence is that every fit person should take part in the defence of his country. Otherwise the position is simply that, whilst people are prepared to talk pacifism and armament reduction, they are equally prepared to let other people do their slaughtering for them, and I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to take the logical consequence of facing the position as it exists.
What I particularly wanted to draw attention to in connection with the details of this Vote is a matter which has to do with the multiplication of accountancy in the Army. This matter was debated a year ago, and at that time the Lawrence Report had only been, I think, about five months in existence. The Labour Front Bench then appointed a Committee to investigate matters with regard to the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of
Military Accountants. I should very much like to know what has happened to that Committee, what the position is at present, and whether the Government are prepared now to consider the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee Report upon this question of military accountancy. I am sure that a great amount of duplication exists, and a great amount of money is wasted, simply because of the fact that Governments in the past have been afraid to interfere with what has been described as the vested interests of at least certain sections of the military forces of this country. This is what the Lawrence Report said:
It is proved to demonstration that by a proper system of accountancy economies to an extent at present unrealised could be effected.
I find from the details of the Vote under discussion that the Royal Army Pay Corps has a personnel of 766 and costs £286,700, while the Corps of Military Accountants number 744, with an expenditure of £220,600, making a total expenditure of over £500,000, and a total personnel of 1,510. That works out to one accountant to, approximately, 100 of the personnel of the Army, so that on soldiers' pay, between £3 and £3 10s. per unit of personnel goes for accountancy. Last Session when the Vote was under discussion one hon. Member pointed out that this does not take into account the financial staff of the War Office or the financial staff of the out-stations of the Army, and he estimated that the soldier pays for accountancy alone £6 2s. That seems to me to be an extravagant sum to pay, and it is obviously due to the fact that duplication of work exists. That is the reason for the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee on this question.
I should like to have a reply as to what the Government are proposing to do in regard to the Lawrence Report, and also with regard to the work of the Committee that was appointed last year by the Labour Government. May I conclude with a quotation upon this particular question from the Joint Permanent Secretary of the War Office, who gave evidence before the Committee on Public Accounts, as to the reason why this duplication of work is maintained
in respect of accountancy in the Army. He said:
The amalgamation of the two military corps would interfere with the prospects of everybody in the Service. When I come to amalgamate the 100 accountants who keep these accounts and the 200 or more paymasters who keep the cash, I shall interfere in a very serious way indeed with the professional prospects and the faith on which these men have come to the Service.
Therefore I think there is something to be said for the suggestion that military vested interests do stand in the way of efficiency in at least one Department of the Army.

Captain A. EVANS: I wish to address myself to certain arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), who moved the Reduction of this Vote. The argument which he employed was typical of the little England attitude for which the Wee Free section of that party is famous. Whether the House is considering Army, Navy or Air Estimate, the same argument is introduced on all occasions. It amounts to this. The Liberal party say, "What right have you to ask the taxpayers to contribute money for the Army, Air Force, or Navy unless you can tell us against whom you are arming, with whom you expect war, and the exact date on which the war is going to begin." That argument is futile. I observe that one hon. Member of that party is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, but does he mean to say that, until that desirable state of affairs is brought about, he is prepared to demobilise the police force? I am rather amused that the Liberal party on this occasion should have chosen a Welsh lawyer to move a reduction in the Vote, and an hon. Gentleman who, I believe, is very well known as a Colonial administrator, to second it, because I believe that, if they consulted the distinguished soldier who is their junior Whip, they would have found out that it is impossible for any military adviser to foretell in the least in what circumstances the armed forces of the Crown will be called on to take part in the next war.

Mr. MAXTON: Nobody knows anything about it.

Captain EVANS: Exactly. The hon. Member for Cardigan said that you must
reduce the Estimates, that they do not compare favourably with those introduced in 1913, and that you must cut down or abolish your cavalry. What assurance has the hon. Member got that the cavalry is not going to be employed in the next war, or that the next war is not going to be carried on under conditions in which the late War was carried on in Palestine and Egypt, where without mounted infantry and cavalry Lord Allenby, that distinguished general, would have been totally incapable of carrying through the splendid victory of which people in this country are justly proud. What assurance have we that in the next campaign armed forces are going to be entrenched within 800 yards of each other for a period of, roughly, three years. I would like to know from hon. and gallant Gentlemen on those benches, who have had experience of these matters, whether they endorse the view of the hon. Gentleman? I suggest that they do not. The hon. Member for Orkney asked what was the need in these times of peace to introduce any Army Estimates.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I did not say that. What I asked was, "What was the need for increasing the Estimates?"

Captain EVANS: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me I will suggest reasons. Has he forgotten that the pay of all ranks of the Army has been substantially increased, that the cost of food in the Army is higher than it was before the War, that clothing costs three times as much as it did in 1913, and that the administrative services of the Army and the cost of the War Office are much heavier than they were in 1913? The hon. Gentleman and his Friends are only too pleased to put forward these facts as arguments in favour of social reform or other measures before the House, but, when it is a question of attacking the Army, Navy or Air Force Estimates, which they do regularly every year, irrespective of altered circumstances, they immediately forget these considerations. I do wish that we had more sincerity in the arguments of hon. Gentlemen on those benches. It was very refreshing to hear the obviously sincere statement from the late Financial Secretary to the War Office. It is a point of
view with which I disagree, but some of us on this side of the House respect it, but the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite is beyond one. How is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to go to his constituents in Wales, in Cardiganshire, and tell them how very proud he was of the services which the Welshmen rendered in the War, and what a fine record the Welsh Guards had, and omit to tell them that, he comes here and uses every influence in his power to cut down the Estimates and curtail our strong right arm. I have no doubt that, should an occasion arise when the Government would find it necessary to call on the services of the men of Wales in another war, my hon. Friend would be the first to volunteer, and I hope for his own experience that he would enter the cavalry. It would do him a lot of good.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a question regarding the Reserve. He has told us on many occasions that the Territorial Army is to be regarded as the reserve Regular Army in the next war. But I am rather uncertain as to what branch of the service is going to act as the draft-finding unit of the Regular Army in the field at the moment. Before the War the Militia or the Special Reserve, as some of us knew it, were responsible in nine out of 10 cases for finding the drafts of the normal wastages of the Regular Army in the field. The third battalion of the regiment in many cases was the special reserve of the regiment, and when the first and second battalions were on active service, the third special reserve battalion not only acted as a training battalion, but as a draft-finding unit to supply the regular battalions in the field. The special reserve has been abolished. I wish to know if the depots of the regiment are to act in that capacity is future, and, if so, does he consider them adequate to fulfil the need? I rather think that, although the Territorial Army is going to enter the field of war as an army, in battalions, in brigades and in divisions, they would be unable to undertake this most important task of also finding recruits for the normal wastage of the Regular Army, and if my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to give me some information on that point I would be obliged to him.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment complained that the Army Estimates were in excess of those of last year. I thought I had made it clear that the actual figure of reduction was about £1,000,000, or, if the terminal charges are taken off, if the decrease of terminal charges is taken into account, the actual Estimate is something like £400,000 less when both cash and the consumption of stores are taken into account. It is necessary to take in the consumption of stores; otherwise the expenditure on the Army would appear to be nearly £2,750,000 less than it is actually. So that the first point I want the House to realise is that this is not an increase in expenditure so far as the Army is concerned. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) proceeded to compare the Estimates of 1913–14 with these Estimates, and asked why it was and how it was that we notified a large increase. I will take his figures, though I do not think that they are right. He claims that there is a 39½ per cent. increase in this year's Estimates, compared with 1913–14. The surprise is that it is not more. It is only because of the greatest care and the largo cuts which have been made in the numbers of men in the Army that the Estimates have been kept down to the figure at which they are. As my hon. and, gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) pointed out, the actual figure of increased cost of clothing and food is something like 70 per cent., while the pay of officers and men has increased in at least the same proportion, but instead of having the increase which might be expected of 70 per cent. we have an increase, on the hon. Member's own figures, of 39½ per cent. I wonder do the House realise the extent of the cut which has taken place in the last five years. In the last five years £27,000,000 has come off the Army Estimates. It is not an easy thing to cut down a living organisation without destroying it entirely, yet by real care in the course of the last five years the Estimates have been cut down by £27,000,000.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The figure of 39½ per cent. which I gave referred to the total Estimates, not to the Army Estimates.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He did not give the percentage on the Army Estimates. There is another reduction to which I would call attention. The figures of men in the Army have been reduced as between 1913 and this year by nearly 30,000, and there has been, I have not the slightest doubt, a very drastic cut in both money and men. The hon. Member asked why we should not reduce the Army still further, seeing that there has been some increase in the Air Force. He was answered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam). The Air Force to-day is not a substitute for the Army. It is a great ally of the Army; it is a great addition to the striking force and the defensive power of the Army, but it is not—not yet at any rate—complete in itself, and it does not enable us to do more than take it into account and it is taken into account in the reductions already made. The hon. Member also asked why, with peace all round, we should keep the Army at its present size. If he will think about it, he will see that the Army is just as responsible as it was before the War for policing the Empire and protecting the Empire, and it has additional liabilities. It has extra responsibilities in Egpyt, in the Sudan, in Iraq and on the Rhine, and owing to the reduction in the Indian Army it has an additional liability in India. If the hon. Member considers all these things in conjunction, he should be among those who congratulate us upon having held the balance between the liabilities which we have to carry out and the means which we have for that purpose. The hon. Member further stated that notwithstanding the fact that the Army had been reduced by 900 men, yet the expenditure on the War Office and staffs had been increased. That is the sort of gibe I have heard several times in the House—that although there is economy somewhere, it is not in the staffs. The hon. Member is no doubt accustomed to expect accuracy in others. He was referring to page 183 of the Estimates.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Page 2.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The item to which he was referring appears on page 183, and if the hon. Member had
read the footnote to that page he would have been able to answer his own question. He was complaining that the cost of the Staff had gone up something over £50,000. There is not one penny of increase, and he could have found it out by looking at the footnote on that page. What was previously charged to Head III has been charged to Head IV., and so it states. It says:
Includes £58,200 for the Staffs of the Directing Ordnance Officer and Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Provision) previously provided under Head III.
Instead, therefore, of there being any increase at all, there is in fact a slight reduction. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) considered that the Memorandum which I issued was an attack upon the unemployed. I most certainly never intended it to be an attack on the unemployed, and I do not think that, properly read, it can be said to be an attack on the unemployed. The hon. Member said that if the unemployed enlisted, they enlisted not as volunteers, but as pressed men. If he will think where that sort of statement carries him, he will see that there are a good many men who work at anything who are not volunteers, but work as pressed men. They work because economic necessities require that they should make their living, and they work as pressed men. A great majority in the world work in that sense, as pressed men, and there is no doubt that a certain number joined the Army before the war—and I have no doubt that many do now—as pressed men, because from economic necessity they have to choose between one form of work and another, and, thank goodness, many choose the Army.
I hope there has been no misunderstanding as to the number of men we have in the Army. Perhaps this paper has led to the impression that we are very disappointed with the number of recruits. AS the hon. Member pointed out, we have had rather more than what were wanted for normal wastage, but what we have not succeeded in getting was the extra 7,500 that we wanted to make good those whom we wanted to transfer prematurely to the Reserve. We have two desires. One is to build up the Reserve as quickly as possible, and for that purpose we have been letting men
go from the Army before they have the full term of their enlistment. We have invited them to go, and in that way we have built up our Reserve this current year by probably 4,000 or 5,000 additional men. Those men have been replaced in the ranks by recruits obtained this year. If we had been able to obtain another 3,000 men, we would have welcomed them, because we would have transferred more to the Reserve and filled up their places by recruits. Therefore, although recruiting was not up to the full number that we should have liked, the hon. Member is quite right in saying that those who would normally have gone away had had their places filled, and in addition 3,000 or 4,000 have filled abnormal vacancies created on purpose by transferring men from the ranks to Reserve. I hope that is not misleading. At any rate, the statement which I have now made is, I hope, plain enough to clear up any misunderstanding on that subject.
I must say "Thank you" for the compliments that the hon. Member paid to the Army bakers. With regard to the vocational training, we are in touch with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and we do compare results. With regard to Catterick, the hon. Member may make his mind easy. We have no intention of reducing our work there. The school will remain there, and it is in a different part of Catterick from the new barracks, and I do not think he need have any fear that the work there will be curtailed in any way. I have a very strong feeling about our duties to the men who serve in our Army. We ought to give them every possible chance of education while they are serving with the Army. We ought to give them every chance of learning a trade while they are serving and during the last six months, and as many as possible, because we ought to do everything we can to prevent the Army being a blind alley, and to enable a man who comes out of the Army with a good character, to be a man sought after by employers, because he comes with the best possible certificate for the last few years. That is our principle, and that is what we wish developed as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) asked me about military accountancy. I do not think he could
have been present when I spoke in Committee. I am afraid he is again away now, and therefore I will not repeat that what I said in Committee; but if the hon. Member reads my remarks, I will refer him to what I said on the occasion. I dealt with the subject at some length in Committee, and I fully answered, in advance, the questions he asked me.
The hon. Member for South Cardiff asked me about the Territorial Army. Of course, the Territorial Army is not intended to find drafts for the Regular Army. If it has to fight, it will fight in units in regular formation, and will not be broken up for the purpose of drafts. He asks me where I am going to get the drafts for the Regular Army. I hope at the end of this financial year the Reserve will be something approaching 100,000 men, and rapidly improving. I hope the Supplementary Reserve will survive the shock it has had, and will be completed, and those numbers, with the Army as it stands, for anything but a war on the largest scale, will be sufficient for drafts, and for the early months, at any rate, of such a war. Of course, there would have to be further recruiting through the depots and regular regiments, in order to make up the casualties as the war proceeded. But I am not altogether satisfied—and I do not want the House to think I am—with the position of the Reserve for the Regular Army. That is a matter which is being most carefully considered at this moment by the Army Council, and I shall pursue that until I have, at any rate something more behind the Regular Army than it has at the present moment.

Mr. AMMON: I want to ask a question concerning soldiers when they leave the Service, and seek employment, preferably in the Civil Service very often, and, after being passed and accepted, there comes the question of their medical record. These men have been turned down again and again on their record from the War Office. The unions have been handicapped by the fact that the War Office always refuses to give the medical record of the men. At least, that information might be given to those who are acting on behalf of the men, because the men
are severely handicapped, in that there is more information on one side than the other, and men are turned down on something of which they have no knowledge. That, surely, would not be a violation of secrets, and I suggest the right hon. Gentleman might meet them in this connection, and, at any rate, allow the people who are acting on their behalf to have this information, so that they may know that everything is being done to give them a start in civil life.

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) put the point to the Minister for War that the Army loaf was produced at 7d. against 10d. or 11d. for the loaf of no superior quality from that of the civilian population. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the observation as a bouquet thrown to him by my hon. Friend. Instead of it being that, my hon. Friend was really asking the right hon. Gentleman to bring the matter before the Food Commission. The right hon. Gentleman, while accepting the compliment, ignored the suggestion. I shall be obliged if he will take the matter into serious consideration.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There is no objection to the hon. Gentleman himself bringing the matter to the notice of the Food Commission if he chooses. If he does not I do not see that it would be within my ordinary duties to do so. I have not myself examined the figures. I accepted them as put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street, and he has had recent experience at the War Office. In regard to the medical history sheet, I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) knows the practice, which is to give it to the man's own medical adviser, if the man likes to authorise us to do so. I cannot agree to give it to a non-professional man, otherwise the man himself might suffer for the treatment he received from the medical man. The medical man must know that at present all these reports are confidential, and that there is information in the reports that is extremely valuable for the medical man; and then the patient has subsequently to be consulted. If he chooses the patient can give them to his own medical man.

Mr. AMMON: If a medical officer of the Union applied, would the sheet be supplied to him?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not a question of the Medical Officer of the Union—

Mr. AMMON: Acting for the man?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have said so.

Question put, "That '£17,000,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 81.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macquisten, F. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Fleming, D. P.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Forestier-Walker, L.
Merriman, F. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Meyer, Sir Frank


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gales, Percy 
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gee, Captain R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C. 
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bennett, A. J.
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Joseph


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hanbury, C.
Oakley, T.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pennefather, Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, William George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pielou, D. P.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Raine, W


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Burman, J. B.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Remer, J. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cooper, A. Duff
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major William
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Couper, J. B.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lougher, L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elveden, Viscount
MacIntyre, Ian
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wells, S. R.


Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Colonel Gibbs and Sir Harry


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Barnston.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Homan, C. W. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Morris.


Resolutions agreed to.

Ordered, That the Resolution which upon the 12th day of this instant March was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 36,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, and Captain King do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

"to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [19th March].

Resolutions reported,
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, the sum of £8,137,227 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, the sum of £163,314,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Guinness.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL,

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five and one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Orders of the Day — PERFORMING ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.